NationStates Jolt Archive

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.67

So close to Ghandi. :(

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33

So close to Ghandi. :(

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33

Why the sad face? Because you don't want to be close, or because you're not close enough?

Why the sad face? Because you don't want to be close, or because you're not close enough?Heh. I've taken the test a few times to see how my views change, and each time I come exceptionally close to matching or exceeding Ghandi, but never quite close enough. I imagine I'll never actually reach that point, but it's fun to see how close I am. :p

So close to Ghandi. :(

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33


thank god for google.look at me im the next gandhi!w00t!

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.67
Wait a sec, didn't you say you're libertarian? Unless you forgot the minus sign...

Anyways:
Economic Left/Right: 6.54
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.07

Economic Left/Right: 8.59
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33

I've taken this test a few times as well ... I pretty much used to be a commie ... now I'm more of an anarchist :cool:

Check the sig.

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.67

Whoa, that is authoritarian and capitalist.

creepy

Economic Left/Right: 7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13

Same old, same old

Economic: -4.25
Social: -4.51

Making me comfortably liberal socialist...

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.15

Economic Left/Right: +9.94
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +10.00

I am Mr. Authority of NS. Mwahahahaha...

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Why is everyone here a radical conservative, or a radical Liberal?

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

I guess I'm a dirty commie ;)

Why is everyone here a radical conservative, or a radical Liberal?

I usually think of myself as relatively moderate, and I think some of the questions are a little skewed. Ex: "'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is a fundamentally good idea."

I don't know a whole lot of people that would say that is a fundamentally bad idea, but most of them (myself included) realize that it is all but impossible to implement a system like that in a large society.

I answered a lot of the questions on more of a "I know this won't work but I wish it could" kind of way. So I guess I'm trying to say how I think and how I vote are two very different things.

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

I think it was the sex and religion questions that tipped it over the edge.

Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

There really are some questions though where I wouldn't mind a 'neither agree nor disagree option'

I'd like to see more people with posative in one, negative in the other. Just for a little variety. Or at least have the two scores further apart.

Why is everyone here a radical conservative, or a radical Liberal?

I'm not either. i'm considering center-right libertarian. Economically I'm very neo-liberal (Adam smith, etc), and socially I'm slightly to the left.

Economic Left/Right : -7.13
Social Libretarian/Authoritarian: -7.13

I was clostest to the Dalia Lama, wierd.

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.67
Okay, I've got goosebumps. Sweet Buddha...

how the thinkings that cames from the writing of Adam Smith got saddled with the lable of "neo-liberal" I will never understand. Also, how our current economic system is called the same thing as what Smith envisioned is beyond me.

I'm not either. i'm considering center-right libertarian. Economically I'm very neo-liberal (Adam smith, etc), and socially I'm slightly to the left.
By libertarian standards, you aren't very libertarian at all.
With that kind of high economic/low libertarian score, I wouldn't compare myself with Mr.Smith, respectively.

Not sure where I'd put Adam Smith on this matrix. I know he favored minimal gov. interference in the economy, asside from a basic set of regulations to prevent monopolies, but I really don't know how he'd rank, socially.

Economic Left/Right: -0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.05

there you go, that's pretty damn centrist

See Sig

Nice to see you round again El Caudillo.

Anyways:

Economic Left/Right: 8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

Not sure where I'd put Adam Smith on this matrix. I know he favored minimal gov. interference in the economy, asside from a basic set of regulations to prevent monopolies, but I really don't know how he'd rank, socially.
That's because "Wealth of Nations" has overshadowed "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", which in many respects reads like a modern critique of consumer culture, and offers strong ethical standards that companies like Enron too often remind us aren't adhered to all of the time.

It begins with a chapter titled "Of Sympathy", which in a lot of ways reads like some modern liberal morality stories.

There were certainly some aspects of Smith's thinking on a social/morality basis that would today be seen as leftist, socially (morally). You're not gonna find the lines on smoking buds or wearing a seatbelt. It's hard to place someone who died that long ago on any kind of modern potical spectrum.

By libertarian standards, you aren't very libertarian at all.
With that kind of high economic/low libertarian score, I wouldn't compare myself with Mr.Smith, respectively.

Personally, I think you're dead wrong. I am very much libertarian.

Personally, I think you're dead wrong. I am very much libertarian.

Though I don't know you; I doubt very much your a libertarian. From what I've seen your just a conservative who is pro-gay rights.

Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26

Though I found some of the questions relating to free trade and punishment vs. rehabilitation rather vague. Compaired to everyones scores, I gues that makes me something of a moderate (be it of the leftist variety). Who knew? :D

Heavy Left wing.
That's all you need to know.

Personally, I think you're dead wrong. I am very much libertarian.
And I believe you are free to think so. :D

That's because "Wealth of Nations" has overshadowed "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", which in many respects reads like a modern critique of consumer culture, and offers strong ethical standards that companies like Enron too often remind us aren't adhered to all of the time.

It begins with a chapter titled "Of Sympathy", which in a lot of ways reads like some modern liberal morality stories.

There were certainly some aspects of Smith's thinking on a social/morality basis that would today be seen as leftist, socially (morally). You're not gonna find the lines on smoking buds or wearing a seatbelt. It's hard to place someone who died that long ago on any kind of modern potical spectrum.

True. I'll have to read "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," thanks for the tip

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

I'm close to the Dalai Lama. Yay.

Though I don't know you; I doubt very much your a libertarian. From what I've seen your just a conservative who is pro-gay rights.

Well you hear wrong. I'm not conservative. I'm neutral on abortion and I'm neutral on marijuana (don't have an opinion, but I don't stop one of my friends from using it.. I personally wouldn't use it myself).

Economic Left/Right: 6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 9.13


It's changed :eek:. Oh well, no harm.

:confused: Well you hear wrong. I'm not conservative. I'm neutral on abortion and I'm neutral on marijuana (don't have an opinion, but I don't stop one of my friends from using it.. I personally wouldn't use it myself).
I'm also neutral on abortion. But marijuana neutrality, as a libertarian?
From what you've said, it sounds like you're antiprohibition, with the ball being in the user's court, and not in the government's. (The ball is the freedom to choose, BTW).
Just because you don't use it, it doesn't sound to me like you wish to make that choice for other adults (just as you wish them to refrain from telling you what to do with your dick.)

I think you should retake the test. Perhaps your score has changed since you've started debating politics on NS. Mine did after a few months.

The sig speaks for itself. But for those of you who don't have them enabled: Economic Left/Right: 3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79

:confused:
I'm also neutral on abortion. But marijuana neutrality, as a libertarian?
From what you've said, it sounds like you're antiprohibition, with the ball being in the user's court, and not in the government's. (The ball is the freedom to choose, BTW).

I think it is his freedom to use marijuana, but I don't use it myself.

Just because you don't use it, it doesn't sound to me like you wish to make that choice for other adults (just as you wish them to refrain from telling you what to do with your dick.)

I don't want to make that choice for other people. When I was at his apartment though, when he was going to use it I respect him and just take a walk. I personally don't like the smell, but to each his own. Afterall cigarettes are more dangerous.

But dude, no need to get rude with me.

I think you should retake the test. Perhaps your score has changed since you've started debating politics on NS. Mine did after a few months.

My score changes all the time.. I've been taking this test for a long time.. six months ago these are my scores:

Economic Left/Right: +4.40
Libertarian/Authoritarian: +1.20

Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.26

I'm an original Tony Blair.

I think it is his freedom to use marijuana, but I don't use it myself.



I don't want to make that choice for other people. When I was at his apartment though, when he was going to use it I respect him and just take a walk. I personally don't like the smell, but to each his own. Afterall cigarettes are more dangerous.Then, as I suspected, you are not neutral on marijuana prohibition, you are pro-choice. This is a position that (to your credit) is far from ambivalent.

But dude, no need to get rude with me.
When was I rude to you? For someone as un-PC as you claim to be, you are a very sensitive person. An openly bisexual, libertarian member uses the word "dick" in a sentence to make a pointand you got offended?
Like a liberal with a "victim mentality", you too seem to look at everyone's comments as a threat, or infer some kind of ill-intent toward every sentence.

Sometimes a dick is a part of the body, other times it's a description of an arrogant male. Context is key when using double entendres.


My score changes all the time.. I've been taking this test for a long time.. six months ago these are my scores:

Economic Left/Right: +4.40
Libertarian/Authoritarian: +1.20
That's cool, but you do seem to hover more in the conservative area. I don't know why you have a hard time with that label, save the current authoritarian stance your current crowd has toward homosexuality.

You don't have to tread a perfect line down the party platform to be a member of the Republican party.

When was I rude to you? For someone as un-PC as you claim to be, you are a very sensitive person. An openly bisexual, libertarian member uses the word "dick" in a sentence to make a pointand you got offended?
Like a liberal with a "victim mentality", you too seem to look at everyone's comments as a threat, or infer some kind of ill-intent toward every sentence.

It was really your tone in the whole of your post. I used the word dick and cock several times in the "is homosexuality a choice thread". That word is no problem with me, of course I'm not offended. I like cock. So what? But it is just that.. well.. your tone I didn't like.


That's cool, but you do seem to hover more in the conservative area. I don't know why you have a hard time with that label, save the current authoritarian stance your current crowd has toward homosexuality.

I'm not hovering around the conservative area at all. Just because I'm pro-free market does not mean I'm conservative. There are plenty of other things I don't agree with the conservatives on... like religion (funding for religious schools), the ten commandments in public areas issue.. etc.

You don't have to tread a perfect line down the party platform to be a member of the Republican party.

I'm not a member of the republican party. I voted democrat twice (for mayor of LA and a district attorney).

Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28

It was really your tone in the whole of your post. I used the word dick and cock several times in the "is homosexuality a choice thread". That word is no problem with me, of course I'm not offended. I like cock. So what? But it is just that.. well.. your tone I didn't like.



I'm not hovering around the conservative area at all. Just because I'm pro-free market does not mean I'm conservative. There are plenty of other things I don't agree with the conservatives on... like religion (funding for religious schools), the ten commandments in public areas issue.. etc.



I'm not a member of the republican party. I voted democrat twice (for mayor of LA and a district attorney).
I don't know that I have a tone so much as a bitchy style. I won't apologize for having style. ;)

As far as your political affiliations, I'm not saying I know who you are, I'm only telling you what I've seen so far. Besides religion and sex, I haven't heard you speak out much on anything but right wing issues. Perhaps, with time, we'll see more of your social tolerance and moral libertarianism.

Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10


Moved economically to the left, which is odd since I have less and less faith in socialism (I do still support wellfare and heavy restriction on business though)

Socially.... Yeah... I'm still right where I want to be.

As far as your political affiliations, I'm not saying I know who you are, I'm only telling you what I've seen so far. Besides religion and sex, I haven't heard you speak out much on anything but right wing issues. Perhaps, with time, we'll see more of your social tolerance and moral libertarianism.

Well if you bring up another topic.. video games and ratings.. I feel that what they did to Grand theft auto game was wrong (giving it an adult only rating).

However, I'm pretty much pro-free market, I'm pro-Iraq war too..

Read sig.

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.67
Wow, that's rather extreme! Did you answer the questions honestly?

My score is in my signature.

Well you hear wrong. I'm not conservative. I'm neutral on abortion and I'm neutral on marijuana (don't have an opinion, but I don't stop one of my friends from using it.. I personally wouldn't use it myself).
That's just talk. Let's face it, abortion and marajuana are just minor issues blown up to distract the public. We'll see where you really stand on the important social issues: security vs liberty. What do you think of the Patriot Act? How about Guantanamo Bay. Your support of the Iraq war also takes away from your libertarian credibility.

That's just talk. Let's face it, abortion and marajuana are just minor issues blown up to distract the public. We'll see where you really stand on the important social issues: security vs liberty. What do you think of the Patriot Act? How about Guantanamo Bay. Your support of the Iraq war also takes away from your libertarian credibility.

Support of the Iraq war takes away from my libertarian credibility? You aren't one to speak. I'm sorry, but your biases are so bad I don't think you can speak for what I believe in.

Support of the Iraq war takes away from my libertarian credibility? You aren't one to speak. I'm sorry, but your biases are so bad I don't think you can speak for what I believe in.
I'm not a libertarian, and I even support the war, but I am familiar enough with that ideology. You can't be a libertarian and support the Iraq war, unless you're so deluded as to believe that the invasion was an action of a "small government". :rolleyes:

The last time I took the test I was:

Economic: -10.00
Social: -8.63

Way past Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.

My score is in my sig, but I don’t like the quiz very much. As to why, I refer you to LazyHippies.

The political compass quiz continues to be an inaccurate toy useful only for entertainment purposes. Here are just a few of the questions that stand outt:

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

If you answer this affirmatively, it implies that you believe your race is better. The fact may be that you believe your race has superior qualities compared with other races and inferior qualities compared with other races and thus they mostly balance out. If that is your view and you answer the question they asked, the assumption they make is factually incorrect.

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment

This question shouldnt be asked because the same person living in a different country could answer this question truthfully yet oppositely because of where he lives. Maybe if I live in the US and am exposed to things like fox news and msnbc I would answer this affirmatively, but if I lived in another country where the news is pretty good I would answer it negatively. Im still the same person with the same political views, I just live somewhere different, but the quiz wont give me the same political views because of where I happen to be living. This is an excellent example of why this quiz is inaccurate.

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

wtf does that question have to do with your political views?

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

Again, this is yet another regional issue. The same person could easily answer this question differently depending on where he is living at the moment. Living in the US, he may answer true, living in Australia he may answer false. Therefore its not a good measure of their political views unless the quiz is only meant to be accurate for those living in a certain country.

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

This is a statement of fact. There is no room for opinion on this question. Perhaps they are mistakenly assuming that you like one party systems simply because you recognize the undeniable fact that they avoid most of the arguments that delay progress in a democratic system?

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
and
No one can feel naturally homosexual.

Is the quiz assuming that since you believe it is immoral you believe it should not be legal? If they are not assuming this, then why are they asking? This is supposed to find out your political views not your personal moral views.

It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's going too far.

Yet another regionally biased question. The same person could easily answer this question truthfully but oppositely depending on whether they live in the USA or Saudi Arabia. Besides being regionally biased it also suffers from the same problem as the two questions above, it mistakenly assumes that you believe the government needs to do things to curb this trend. This isnt supposed to be a quiz on your moral beliefs, its supposed to be about how you like the government to be run.

I'm not a libertarian, and I even support the war, but I am familiar enough with that ideology. You can't be a libertarian and support the Iraq war, unless you're so deluded as to believe that the invasion was an action of a "small government". :rolleyes:

I can be a libertarian and I can support the Iraq war. You are the deluded one.

i think i'm somewhere in between yassir arafat and suddam hussien. i don't really like the test that much though, it leaves out allot as it says most of my friends from yopenya are right close to eachother.

I can be a libertarian and I can support the Iraq war. You are the deluded one.
How do you justify it from a libertarian standpoint?
I, personally, can not understand why the blood of our soldiers must be spilled to protect those backward people from their own neighbors.
Non-interventionist foreign policy is a hallmark of libertarianism.

How do you justify it from a libertarian standpoint?
I, personally, can not understand why the blood of our soldiers must be spilled to protect those backward people from their own neighbors.
Non-interventionist foreign policy is a hallmark of libertarianism.

I am not a non-interventionist libertarian. It is best not to generalize, now is it?

I am not a non-interventionist libertarian. It is best not to generalize, now is it?
That doesn’t make any sense. A small government couldn’t possibly be interventionist enough to carry out something as idiotic as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

I am not a non-interventionist libertarian.
Isn't that a bit like saying "I'm an anti-redistribution of wealth communist?"

*pokes sig*

Isn't that a bit like saying "I'm an anti-redistribution of wealth communist?"
lol, exactly.

Economic Left/Right: 10
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87

An interventionist libertarian, and I thought I've seen everything. That seems rather hypocritical, small goevrnment who leaves the people be, except for military reasons.

Eyes down.



Not there, the sig ;)

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.67

*gulp* now that ones a little scary. Thats worse than hitler.

for some reason, I can't see the link or whatever you guys are getting these rankings from

Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67

the link is http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Isn't that a bit like saying "I'm an anti-redistribution of wealth communist?"

That one made me giggle :)

*gulp* now that ones a little scary. Thats worse than hitler.
I would avoid making moral judgements based on political compass scores. Just because he's authoritarian, doesn't mean he advocates genocide.

See the sig. As I've noted before, the test is flawed. It doesn't differentiate between what a person believes is right and what a person believes should be allowed.

Some time ago I took this test. I think the result was around at -4.0 at economic left/right and 1.65 at libertarian/authoritarian.

In the near of Pope John Paul II. A good result for me ;-)

Economic: -10.00
Social: - 9.00

That doesn’t make any sense. A small government couldn’t possibly be interventionist enough to carry out something as idiotic as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

I'm interventionist when it comes to military matters. And Operation Iraqi freedom isn't idiotic, those who oppose it are.

no need for personal attacks. If you wanna dabate the justification of invading Iraq, I'd be glad to, but do it civily, please.

EDIT: That was directed at both of you, by the way, so it doesn't seem like I'm playing favorites

I'm interventionist when it comes to military matters. And Operation Iraqi freedom isn't idiotic, those who oppose it are.
What is idiotic about opposing a war to prevent an attack that was never threatened, help culturally backward people who despise your way of life, and cost billions in dollars and thousands in American lives?

What is idiotic about opposing a war to prevent an attack that was never threatened, help culturally backward people who despise your way of life, and cost billions in dollars and thousands in American lives?

What is idiotic about opposing a man who massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people? I don't give a damn if you think these people are backwards. I think it was right that we did help and that we intervened to kick the shit out of Saddam Hussein, sending a clear message to the word. To not intervene would destroy the image of this country and we would of folded to the peaceniks who don't understand the reality.

You aren't a real republican.

ok, I'm against the invasion too, but that's just too much. Don't be such a biggot. And I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and the American deaths. Americans arn't special, somehow. Nationality doesn't bestow some kind of magical importantance.

Saddam didn't have WMD because he used them on his own people

What is idiotic about opposing a man who massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people? I don't give a damn if you think these people are backwards. I think it was right that we did help and that we intervened to kick the shit out of Saddam Hussein, sending a clear message to the word. To not intervene would destroy the image of this country and we would of folded to the peaceniks who don't understand the reality.

You aren't a real republican.

You really think we went in to help the Iraqi people? Ha. If that's true, why would be help bring and keep in power dictators just as bad and worse in Uzbeckistan, Indonisia, Chile, Nicuragua, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and many, many others?

ok, I'm against the invasion too, but that's just too much. Don't be such a biggot. And I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and the American deaths. Americans arn't special, somehow. Nationality doesn't bestow some kind of magical importantance.

You people are truly full of nonsense. I mean come on.. I am for the invasion because I care about the Iraqi people. I had enough of Saddam Hussein and wanted him out of power. You just don't get do you? Sure if Saddam was allowed to stay in power, he would prepare one of his sons to take power. You know how fucked up that would be?

And what you say about all those other countries.. let's bring that up... what about them? We can change our errors that we made in the past by supporting these past regimes. A error doesn't havbe to be a mistake.

Saddam didn't have WMD because he used them on his own people

Who gave him those poision gases in the first place and taught him how to use them? THE US!

Also, if he had WMDs, where are they? Colin Powel acknoweldged that they were destroyed years ago, up intill 2001 that was the offical report on Iraq, that they have no WMDs, and they their conventional military is weakening. Then, all of a sudden, the administration switches gears. They change their stance. They *flip-flop,* come up with some false intelligence, and rape Iraq for the benefit of US business

Also, if he had WMDs, where are they? Colin Powel acknoweldged that they were destroyed years ago, up intill 2001 that was the offical report on Iraq, that they have no WMDs, and they their conventional military is weakening. Then, all of a sudden, the administration switches gears. They change their stance. They *flip-flop,* come up with some false intelligence, and rape Iraq for the benefit of US business

It doesn't matter. It matters when he was murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the fact he had to go. Look at it this way: What if Udai Hussein took power? What then? Saddam was predictable and dangerous. Udai was unpredictable and dangerous. Udai is now in a coffin where he belongs. Rape Iraq for the benefit of US businesses? When the hell is that happening? Where exactly? The Iraqi government still controls all the oil. So nope...

And what you say about all those other countries.. let's bring that up... what about them? We can change our errors that we made in the past by supporting these past regimes. A error doesn't havbe to be a mistake.

If only that were true. We continue to support these regimes.

I'm all for Saddam getting what he deserves. I don't think US was the one to do it, because I don't think they had Iraq's best intentions in mind.

If only that were true. We continue to support these regimes.

Start naming the regimes.

Chile is ruled by a democratic government. We withdrew our support for Uzbekistan and condemned them. Indonesia is the largest islamic democracy. Nicaragua is also a democracy now.. not a very functional one, but it still has elections.

I could go through the rest..

I'm all for Saddam getting what he deserves. I don't think US was the one to do it, because I don't think they had Iraq's best intentions in mind.

I think the US was very much the one who has to do it because it was our fault we did not finish the job in 1991. That's why I hate Bush's father. We do have Iraq's best intentions in mind. If we didn't, the Iraqi government wouldn't exist.

I get different results different times.

These are my latest:
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36

Rape Iraq for the benefit of US businesses? When the hell is that happening? Where exactly? The Iraqi government still controls all the oil. So nope...

I'm not talking about just oil, so don't make assumptions. One thing I mean is how the contracts to rebuild Iraq all went to US companies instead of able Iraqi ones (adding to our economy instead of rebuilding the Iraqi one), and now US companies and investers have a whole new country as a new market, how investers and businesspeople are calling Iraq the biggest opertunity for investment and aquistion in decades, and yes, American oil will profit tremendously from this. Not to mention that Bush Sr. makes bank whenever the US busy weapons from the Carlyle Group, our biggest arms provider. War makes certain people money, and the Bush family and many of their friends are those people.

I get different results different times.

These are my latest:
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36

What were your previous scores if you remember? I'm curious because it is the same deal for me..

What is idiotic about opposing a man who massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people? I don't give a damn if you think these people are backwards. I think it was right that we did help and that we intervened to kick the shit out of Saddam Hussein, sending a clear message to the word. To not intervene would destroy the image of this country and we would of folded to the peaceniks who don't understand the reality.
The world hates us even more since we invaded Iraq. We did nothing to improve our image there.
You aren't a real republican.
I haven’t affiliated myself with that party in a while. I am a libertarian (lower case).
ok, I'm against the invasion too, but that's just too much. Don't be such a biggot. And I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and the American deaths. Americans arn't special, somehow. Nationality doesn't bestow some kind of magical importantance.
I am a bigot when it comes to modern Western Civilization. I believe its respect for human life and individual freedom makes it superior. Those Iraqis rioted over what the weekend should be. Some didn’t want it to be on Saturday because that is the Jewish Sabbath, but others did, so they killed people and set cars on fire. Their culture is incompatible with democracy. Note that I did not say their religion was incompatable, but the way it is applied to their society is.
I care more about the American deaths because they are my countrymen. If I was British I would care more about the British deaths.

I'm not talking about just oil, so don't make assumptions. One thing I mean is how the contracts to rebuild Iraq all went to US companies instead of able Iraqi ones (adding to our economy instead of rebuilding the Iraqi one), and now US companies and investers have a whole new country as a new market, how investers and businesspeople are calling Iraq the biggest opertunity for investment and aquistion in decades, and yes, American oil will profit tremendously from this. Not to mention that Bush Sr. makes bank whenever the US busy weapons from the Carlyle Group, our biggest arms provider. War makes certain people money, and the Bush family and many of their friends are those people.

Iraqi ones? They didn't have equipment to rebuild themselves. We had to give them a hand and we are giving them jobs. Yes I hope more US investors go into Iraq and give the Iraqis jobs. It wil be a good thing. You need to get your rhetoric straightened out.

The world hates us even more since we invaded Iraq. We did nothing to improve our image there.

Well it would be even worse off if we didn't invade Iraq. It was our moral obligation to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I'm pissed that we didn't do it in 1991.

I care about every single US soldier dying and I'm disheartened that it happens.. but.. that does not change my allegiances.

Start naming the regimes.

Chile is ruled by a democratic government. We withdrew our support for Uzbekistan and condemned them. Indonesia is the largest islamic democracy. Nicaragua is also a democracy now.. not a very functional one, but it still has elections.

I could go through the rest..

In Indonesia, women are property of their husbands, who can beat and kill them without fear of legal repercussions. The Chilean "democracy" has executed tens of thousands of politcal dissitents. Last I heard Bush was defending Uzbeckistan firing with machine guns into a crowd of unarmed peaceful protesters. Remember, Iraq was technically a "democracy," China is a "democracy," just being a democracy doesn't mean good.

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51

Iraqi ones? They didn't have equipment to rebuild themselves. We had to give them a hand and we are giving them jobs. Yes I hope more US investors go into Iraq and give the Iraqis jobs. It wil be a good thing. You need to get your rhetoric straightened out.

US invests, US reaps the rewards, Iraq gets the scraps. That's how it is accross the mid east. Maby that's why they're so "backwards." And I have that on authority from the current ambassitor to Quatar, who has served the US all across the mid east. So I think he knows a bit more then you, it's his job to.

They riot over what day the weekend is, we riot when our college's basketball team wins or loses a game.

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38

In Indonesia, women are property of their husbands, who can beat and kill them without fear of legal repercussions. The Chilean "democracy" has executed tens of thousands of politcal dissitents. Last I heard Bush was defending Uzbeckistan firing with machine guns into a crowd of unarmed peaceful protesters. Remember, Iraq was technically a "democracy," China is a "democracy," just being a democracy doesn't mean good.

In the United States a lot of women are treated like this too. But that doesn't mean we haven't tried to end that.

The Chilean elected government has executed tens of thousands of political dissidents? Really? You have some evidence for that? Can I See the evidence that the Chilean government has executed tens of thousands after Pinochet left? I'm really curious. I've been to Santiago about a dozen times in 2000 and 2001.

Bush was defending Uzbekistan firing with machine guns into a crowd of unarmed peaceful protesters? You have any damn proof for that little lie? The US actually condemned Uzbekistan and withdrew assistance.

Iraq was never technically a democracy. China isn't a democracy either. Please get your definition rights.

You wanna lie some more?

US invests, US reaps the rewards, Iraq gets the scraps. That's how it is accross the mid east. Maby that's why they're so "backwards." And I have that on authority from the current ambassitor to Quatar, who has served the US all across the mid east. So I think he knows a bit more then you, it's his job to.

They riot over what day the weekend is, we riot when our college's basketball team wins or loses a game.

That's such BS. You really need to understand the facts. You think the US encouraged Uzbekistan to commit those atrocities (we pulled assistance and Uzbekistan kicked us out)... so really I dont' think you know about the facts.

You aren't a real republican.

Haha, he's a rino. What a douche.

just kidding Undelia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I retook it and came up with this:

Economic Left/Right: 5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

I never said we encouraged Uzbackistan, and there's no way I could find the article now.

I don't see by what authority you call my claim bullshit. I provide you with a assertaion by a person who is in a position to know, you respond with "that's bullshit."

In Chine, people vote. They only have one party to vote from, but they vote. So they call themsleves a democracy, even though they are not.

In Indonesia, that behavior is legal.

I was specificaly referring to Pinochet, ass.

Now I said at the beginning that I'd only do this if you remained civil. So far, all you have done is fling insults and use the word "bullshit" overmuch. Curseing and talking loudly doesn't make you right, you know. If you go on like this, I won't waste any more time on you.

Show me where we've pull support for Uzbackistan, and I'll believe you.

You seem so upset by Saddam gassing the Kurds, but where's the same concern for the Kurds the Turks slaughtered with helecopters and missles? The US doesn't seem to keen on making Turkey fess up.

Face it, the US has a long history of supporting brutal regimes when it suits our intrests.

I never said we encouraged Uzbackistan, and there's no way I could find the article now.

No in fact we condemned them, withdrew assistance and our airbase was kicked out.

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/Aug/04-269346.html?chanlid=humanrights

The United States was not surprised by a recent Uzbek government request for the United States to leave the Karshi-Khanabad (K-2) air base within 180 days, the State Department’s R. Nicholas Burns told the BBC Uzbek Service in an interview August 2.

“We made a clear choice, and that was to stand on the side of human rights,” said Burns, U.S. under secretary of state for political affairs.

The United States has long urged the Uzbek government to undertake democratic reforms and strongly supported calls for a transparent, credible investigation into the May violence by Uzbek security forces against civilians in and around the city of Andijon. The United States has also joined the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in advocating the transfer to a third country for resettlement processing of Uzbek asylum seekers who fled to Kyrgyzstan.

Of the Uzbek government's decision to ask the United States to leave the K-2 air base, Burns said: “We did see an indication that this would occur, we knew it would occur.”

The United States has a “balanced view” of relations with Uzbekistan, he continued. “On the one hand we clearly have been supportive of efforts to strengthen our relationship on the military side. Of course, access to the base was useful to us, but on the other hand, the United States felt it was very important we speak out clearly on behalf of those who were victims of human right abuses, particularly concerning the Andijon episode,” Burns said, referring to the violence that took place May 13 in Andijon.

He also noted the United States' ongoing interests in Central Asia.

“The conflict in Afghanistan clearly has not ended,” Burns added. “There are Taliban and al Qaeda attacks on the Afghan forces, on the Coalition forces -- on the European forces as well as the American forces. And, therefore, it’s still necessary for the United States to take advantage of our friendships in Central Asia, to be able to use the bases in order to provide support and supplies to our forces in Afghanistan.”

He noted that Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan confirmed recently during Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s trip to the region that the United States will continue to have access to certain military facilities in those countries.

The United States has an interest in good relations with the government of Uzbekistan, Burns said. “We have an interest in continued counter-terrorism and military cooperation, but we also have an interest in human rights.”

“We think it’s normal that a country should both press for security interests as well as for interests concerning democracy and human rights,” he said.

While the United States will continue to try to be a helpful partner in the War on Terrorism, he said, “We will also continue to be clear about our interest in human-rights and democratic reforms.”

He urged the Uzbek government to agree to a credible international inquiry into the May events in Andijon. “We owe it -- all of us -- to the victims there, to the families of the victims and we will continue to assert the point that Uzbekistan should be open to an international investigation,” he said.

Following is the State Department transcript of the Burns interview:

U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C.
August 3, 2005

Interview With Pahlavon Turghunov of the BBC Uzbek Service

R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs

In Chine, people vote. They only have one party to vote from, but they vote. So they call themsleves a democracy, even though they are not.

People vote for lower level officials. The supreme party leaders are appointed. This isn't a democracy.

I got you in many little half truths..

Show me where we've pull support for Uzbackistan, and I'll believe you.


2004: $50.6 million
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/35992.htm

2003: $86.1 million
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/29494.htm

Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

Haha, he's a rino. What a douche.

just kidding Undelia
What is a Rino?

Some time ago I took this test. I think the result was around at -4.0 at economic left/right and 1.65 at libertarian/authoritarian.

In the near of Pope John Paul II. A good result for me ;-)

Ooh, a rare (-,+). We see those even less often than my kind.

Well it would be even worse off if we didn't invade Iraq. It was our moral obligation to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I'm pissed that we didn't do it in 1991.
You have given me an idea.

You have given me an idea.

Oh, come on. You know you can't leave us hanging like that. :p

snip

Tuche'
Good on them. Like I said, last I heard, we were defending them. I suppose we changed out position. I stand corrected.



People vote for lower level officials. The supreme party leaders are appointed. This isn't a democracy.

I got you in many little half truths..

My point was that China is not a real democracy, ass. You have caught me in nothing.

You also have not answered what authority you have to refute the claim made by the ambassitor to Quatar and former ambassitor to most of the middle east that throughout the mid east, forgieners are investing and forgieners are reaping the benefits, with only the crumbs going back to the local polulance.

It seems I have caught you with no defence other then to throw up the work "bullshit."

Also, if we're so committed to freedom around the world, why did we help bring Pinochet into power? Why help the terrorist drug runners Contras try to take power? Why give Indonisia, a nations with massive civil rights abuses, large amounts of money? Why is Iraq (a place with something we want, that we can link to terrorist in the public mind, that is already evil in the public mind) the only tyrant we chose to depose?

My point was that China is not a real democracy, ass. You have caught me in nothing.

First off I caught you in many historical inaccuracies. You cannot confess you are just plain wrong.

Also your horrid spelling has prevented me from talking to you. You sound like a 13 year old who has gone on a temper tantrum.

You know very little about Latin America. You really need to get your facts right. I'm serious. It was the Ortega government that took over in 1979 that was deeply involved in drugs. And I don't know what you are ranting about.. using your horrid logic any foreign investment means foreigners are coming in and invading.. get your logic right. Foreign Direct Investment helps the economy of the country where it is going into.

Oh and right after we heard about those abuses in Uzbekistan we condemned them. Not at one point did we defend them.

It was the Ortega government that took over in 1979 that was deeply involved in drugs.

Are you claiming that the Contras weren't also heavily involved in the drugs trade?

where did I say that investment ment invasion? What I said was, the way the West often treats the middle east, it ends up doing more harm then good. I have first hand account of this.

Yes, I have terrible spelling. Not much I can do about it.

I have admited when I was wrong about Uzbeckistan.

I find you just a think headed and your logic as infantile as you find mine. We're getting nothing acomplished here, save insults. If you ever want to do this without the hostility, you know where to find me. For now, though, I have other things to do. I'm sure we'll encounter each other again some other time.

You have not refuted that the US helps bring into power and continues to support brutal regimes, you have attacked some of my points while ignoring others, you have put up a screen of insults and attacks. Time will tell who reaps the benefits of the invasion, and I have a feeling US bisiness will be at the top of the list.

I don't recall my previous score, but I've definitely become both more left-wing and more libertarian. I blame it all on my exposure to the heartless fans of the smirking chimp I've been... exposed to... on NS.

Colour me "Anarcho-Syndicalist", though "Socialist" will do just fine.

And proud to be who and what I am.

Your (current) political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.87

where did I say that investment ment invasion? What I said was, the way the West often treats the middle east, it ends up doing more harm then good. I have first hand account of this.

I simply don't agree.

I find you just a think headed and your logic as infantile as you find mine. We're getting nothing acomplished here, save insults. If you ever want to do this without the hostility, you know where to find me. For now, though, I have other things to do. I'm sure we'll encounter each other again some other time.

Think headed? What does that mean?

My logic is very realistic. Your logic is infantile, and not understanding of the reality. You see the difference between me and you, is that I understand the reality of the situation. You don't.

I don't recall my previous score, but I've definitely become both more left-wing and more libertarian. I blame it all on my exposure to the heartless fans of the smirking chimp I've been... exposed to... on NS.

Colour me "Anarcho-Syndicalist", though "Socialist" will do just fine.

And proud to be who and what I am.

Your (current) political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.87

Wow, you're as far economically left as I am economically right! :eek:

(You're a few points more libertarian too.)

What is a Rino?

"Republican in Name Only"

One of those stupid little self-assuring catch phrases that Republican team members use.

I took the quiz again for the heck of it,
Economic Left/Right: 6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87
Moved farther right economically and farther left socially.

"Republican in Name Only"

One of those stupid little self-assuring catch phrases that Republican team members use.
Dang. In Canada, "Rhino" means something completely different.

However, I prefer the moral compass. (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home)

On that, I straddle the line between ultra-capitalism and ultra-liberalism.

w00t.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.74

However, I prefer the moral compass. (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home)

On that, I straddle the line between ultra-capitalism and ultra-liberalism.
Okay, I tried that one, too.

Your Score

Your scored -5 on the Moral Order axis and 2 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Socialism
Variation: Moral Socialism
Ideologies: Social Democratism, Activism
US Parties: Green Party
Presidents: Jimmy Carter (90.12%)
2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (93.75%), John Kerry (80.24%), George W. Bush (46.05%)

Hey, Jimmy Carter wuz my fave prez. Whaddaya know. I didn't like the options given for a number of the questions, particularly the ones for the 'security' question.

Your Score

Your scored 1 on the Moral Order axis and -4 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

1. System: Conservatism
2. Variation: Moderate Conservatism, Economic Conservatism
3. Ideologies: Capital Republicanism
4. US Parties: Republican Party, Democratic Party
5. Presidents: Richard Nixon (95.06%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (81.78%), John Kerry (80.24%), Ralph Nader (61.98%)

A lot of those questions are really worded strangely... I couldn't take it because I wasn't clear enough on many of them.

Interesting that I scored "Socialist" on the Morality quiz. I did say...

However, I prefer the moral compass. (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home)


Hmmm.

Your scored -5 on the Moral Order axis and 4.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Digs out Swimmingpool's map of the Political Compass...

...about -7.7/-8.9 on that one.

I seem to have a tendency to get pegged as slightly more softcore than I am on these tests - I consider myself an anarchist (or libertarian socialist as the moral compass would have it) and got a result just to the side of it - 'Activism'. I guess this is because I answer questions saying 'people should do X', as I believe those things are the correct thign to do, but in no way to do I approve of people being forced to do them.

The test pegs me as a Republican, which is wrong, but not too surprising. It's a morality-based political test, and my politics don't really have a lot to do with my personal morality.

Your Score
You scored -1.5 on the Moral Order axis and -5.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Liberalism
Variation: Economic Liberalism
Ideologies: Progressive NeoLiberalism
US Parties: No match. (Thank God)
Presidents: Bill Clinton (88.95%) :cool:
2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (83.17%), George W. Bush (71.19%), Ralph Nader (65.06%)

A lot of those questions are really worded strangely... I couldn't take it because I wasn't clear enough on many of them.
It isn’t the best.
Leonstein has a link to a really good (albeit long) political quiz.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.82

I did well.


Your Score

Your scored 1.5 on the Moral Order axis and -7 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Conservatism
Variation: Economic Conservatism
Ideologies: Ultra Capitalism, Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: Ronald Reagan (95.06%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (82.18%), John Kerry (70.27%), Ralph Nader (51.54%)
Statistics

Of the 100463 people who took the test:

0.4% had the same score as you.
95.5% were above you on the chart.
1.4% were below you on the chart.
22.2% were to your right on the chart.
71.8% were to your left on the chart.

I did better.

It isn’t the best.
Leonstein has a link to a really good (albeit long) political quiz.

I don't like that one, either. It also words things quite differently.

So far, I think the moral compass is the best one I've seen. Simple, yet effective. Also, I think it's less biased than the political compass.

I dont think that this quiz is very accurate because many of the questions were social ones not political ones, and many of my answers rested on techincalities rather than fundamental philisophical disagreements. I ought to be Economic 10 Social -10 as I don't think the government should exist, and that free market law and security should take its place. The quiz also tries to skew results to the left quite obviously in the wording of questions.

Objections aside, my score was:

Economic Left/Right: 7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

The first question is what really irked me: "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

I think that it will primarily serve both the interests of trans-national corporations and humanity, not because they are one in the same, but because the accomplishment of the latter, helps to affect the former, under a free market system that is(maybe that puts my answer more on the side of humanity than corporations as corporations often benefit from government favoritism and trade protectionism and the like). Of course if I answered it should serve humanity(the best way to do this IMO is to create an absolutely free market) it would mark me as a socialist which I am decidedly not. This quiz maybe adequate to place normal leftists and rightists(albiet with a leftist slant) on a chart, but it hardly does the libertarian position justice.

I don't like that one, either. It also words things quite differently.

So far, I think the moral compass is the best one I've seen. Simple, yet effective. Also, I think it's less biased than the political compass.
Funny, I found it more biased than the political compass.

This quiz maybe adequate to place normal leftists and rightists(albiet with a leftist slant) on a chart, but it hardly does the libertarian position justice.
Always these people claiming there's a leftist slant somewhere. Next I'll be hearing there's a leftist slant in somebody's bowl of cornflakes, I swear.

Your Score

Your scored -5 on the Moral Order axis and 3 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

1. System: Socialism
2. Variation: Moral Socialism
3. Ideologies: Social Democratism, Activism
4. US Parties: No match.
5. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (86.02%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (90.12%), John Kerry (76.20%), George W. Bush (43.40%)


Economic Left/Right: -7.05
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

I just took both tests.

all right here in my sig. Iforget what it said beyond that though, and if I took it again, It'd probably come out different.

Your scored -1 on the Moral Order axis and -2.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.08

I guess I'm pretty near the middle on everything. I have no idea what that's called, but my guess is that there haven't been many political threads complaining about me. :p

Start naming the regimes.

Chile is ruled by a democratic government. We withdrew our support for Uzbekistan and condemned them. Indonesia is the largest islamic democracy. Nicaragua is also a democracy now.. not a very functional one, but it still has elections.

I could go through the rest..



I think the US was very much the one who has to do it because it was our fault we did not finish the job in 1991. That's why I hate Bush's father. We do have Iraq's best intentions in mind. If we didn't, the Iraqi government wouldn't exist.

Yup, Bush Sr screwed up and caved to popular pressure and let the Iraqi Republican guard live to tell another tale....and then you have Gulf war 2, which wouldn't have been possible had GW1 been completed.

Economic: 9.88

Social 4.53

I'm a social moderate and an economic extremist!