NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a pretty simple question, and I figured I'd get NSG's opinion on the matter. We are a comparatively reasonable (n comparison to most people I meet) and diverse crowd, so I figured I'd ask you guys.

Is Gravy's contention that:

What is constant, is that you take patriotism to an almost insanely blind extreme, and dwell in a reality of your own where there are clear 'goodies' and 'baddies', and where you've been lucky enough to land among these saints.

true?

I've included a poll, and it's private.

sounds more like dualism or manichaeism to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

I don't know you well enough to say, as I can't recall a single thing you've said here. however GnI tends to be pretty on the mark most times.

It's a pretty simple question, and I figured I'd get NSG's opinion on the matter. We are a comparatively reasonable (n comparison to most people I meet) and diverse crowd, so I figured I'd ask you guys.

Is Gravy's contention that:



true?

I've included a poll, and it's private.


Only you can answer this. Do you?

I don't know. I remember you as somewhat right-wing, but not the worst nutjob here...

Only you can answer this. Do you?

No, I don't.

There is no right or left, no good or evil, no crazy or sane. The is only fun or not fun.

Are you fun?

No, I don't.

Then no it isn't.:D

There is no right or left, no good or evil, no crazy or sane. The is only fun or not fun.

Are you fun?

I jumped naked (minus a bright red wig) into a frozen pond last thursday. I'd say I'm fun.

Like someone said, you swing more to the right than Ann Coulter's strap on.

No but seriously, I don't know you, but I'm tempted to vote yes just as an insult, what kind of pointless, weird thread/poll is this?

I jumped naked (minus a bright red wig) into a frozen pond last thursday. I'd say I'm fun.

Nah, been there, done that, and I'm no fun at all :p ;)

Like someone said, you swing more to the right than Ann Coulter's strap on.


Ann Coulter has a strap on? I thought it was real!

I'll say yes on the basis that the coin told me to say so.

I jumped naked (minus a bright red wig) into a frozen pond last thursday. I'd say I'm fun.


Idon't know about the right wing part, but I'd say that makes you a nut-job.:D

I jumped naked (minus a bright red wig) into a frozen pond last thursday. I'd say I'm fun.

I would agree. :)

Let's first define "nutjob": Let's say a nutjob is somebody whose mind and behaviour patterns deviate clearly from the norm.
Seeing that you actually spend time thinking about such personal insults instead of discarding it as mad ramblings clearly sets you apart from normal people.
So although or rather because of your mature reaction to these insults I guess it's safe to assume that you're a complete nutjob.
Whether you're left, right or whatever wing, you probably know better than anybody else. :)

Like someone said, you swing more to the right than Ann Coulter's strap on.

No but seriously, I don't know you, but I'm tempted to vote yes just as an insult, what kind of pointless, weird thread/poll is this?

Ann Coulter has a strap on? I thought it was real!

It's both: It's real, but it's not hers. :eek:

I don't know. I remember you as somewhat right-wing, but not the worst nutjob here...

Once upon a time I was fairly right-ish, but then I went to college, realized that North Canton, Ohio, was not the entire world, and came to the conclusion that I was pretty incredibly wrong a lot of the time.

It's both: It's real, but it's not hers. :eek:

*checks self*

Good...she didn't get mine.

Once upon a time I was fairly right-ish, but then I went to college, realized that North Canton, Ohio, was not the entire world, and came to the conclusion that I was pretty incredibly wrong a lot of the time.

Lets do a little test.

Are you patriotict?
Do you thing that the weak should be lead by the strong?
What do you think of solcialism?
What do you think of Libralisim(not liberterianism)?

Based on what I've seen, your posts tend to be pretty objective and based on good research, rather than anecdotes or moralising rhetoric. Though it may be slightly to the right, it's by no means to a 'nutjob' extent.

Lets do a little test.

Are you patriotict?

I pretended to be Swiss when I went to Europe. That should tell you the answer to that.

Do you thing that the weak should be lead by the strong?

Strong and weak should have equal roles in determining governing policy.

What do you think of solcialism?

It depends. In some instances and for some groups socialism is a highly functional way to organize the economy. For others, it isn't. Nothing particularly moral or immoral about it.

What do you think of Libralisim(not liberterianism)?

It's certainly better than the governing style and policies put forth by its opponents of late.

I pretended to be Swiss when I went to Europe. That should tell you the answer to that.



Strong and weak should have equal roles in determining governing policy.



It depends. In some instances and for some groups socialism is a highly functional way to organize the economy. For others, it isn't. Nothing particularly moral or immoral about it.



It's certainly better than the governing style and policies put forth by its opponents of late.


Then I declare you, not right winged!:D

In fact you sound positivly Liberal to me.

Let's first define "nutjob": Let's say a nutjob is somebody whose mind and behaviour patterns deviate clearly from the norm.
Seeing that you actually spend time thinking about such personal insults instead of discarding it as mad ramblings clearly sets you apart from normal people.
So although or rather because of your mature reaction to these insults I guess it's safe to assume that you're a complete nutjob.

Never claimed to not be a nutjob :)

Whether you're left, right or whatever wing, you probably know better than anybody else. :)

Well, duh. I wouldn't believe what I believe unless it were right! ;)

Then I declare you, not right winged!:D
That, and I clearly can't be right winged, because I don't have wings! I have hands!

I am right handed, though :)

For full disclosure: I voted "I don't know you", so maybe that might be taken the wrong way (as evidence that maybe I don't know myself), but, whatever.

Not really. You've always struck me as fairly right-wing but usually coherent and reasonable, which separates you from the real right-wing nutjobs on NS, ie Deep Kimchi and New Mitanni.

I'd rather be a Right-Wing Nutjob than a Leftist with no nuts and no job :wink:

If you feel the need to ask, you probably are :p

Best poll results ever.

I dunno, how much would you say you love freedom?

I dunno, how much would you say you love freedom?

What sort of freedom? The "marry who I want type" or the "Iraqi" type?

What sort of freedom? The "marry who I want type" or the "Iraqi" type?
Well if the "Iraqi' type is the freedom to live under a finally stabalizing society free from a tyrannical genocidal dictator, I wouldn't mind that either.

sounds more like dualism or manichaeism to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

Saint Augustine of Hippona practiced Manichaeism in his youth.

What sort of freedom? The "marry who I want type" or the "Iraqi" type?
Not right wing enough to be a nutjob.

A real nutjob would just say 'yes' :tongue:

I will refrain from voting, because everyone looks a bit right-wing to me.

I will refrain from voting, because everyone looks a bit right-wing to me.
That's what you get for hating freedom tbqh.

I don't know you well enough to say, as I can't recall a single thing you've said here. however GnI tends to be pretty on the mark most times.
You kidding? I've noticed he/she seems to characterize some people's perspectives quite inaccurately... in some of the same conversations where others whose description of my position was more accurate than GnI's, they were still more willing to grant that they might have misunderstood than GnI seemed willing to be.

Anyway, as for the subject at hand, Andaluciae, I don't think ideology labels are very meaningful, but what opinions of yours are considered "right-wing"?

Have I gotten a red card for flaming you?


Then probably not. But I dont know you peronally. So you could just be good at hiding it.

Anyway, as for the subject at hand, Andaluciae, I don't think ideology labels are very meaningful,

Oh, same for me.

but what opinions of yours are considered "right-wing"?

Apparently because I don't ascribe every event in the world to the malicious intent of the US, I'm a mindless, patriotic parrot, in Gravy's opinion.

Apparently because I don't ascribe every event in the world to the malicious intent of the US, I'm a mindless, patriotic parrot, in Gravy's opinion.

yes, I'm sure that's exactly why . . .

It's a pretty simple question, and I figured I'd get NSG's opinion on the matter. We are a comparatively reasonable (n comparison to most people I meet) and diverse crowd, so I figured I'd ask you guys.

Is Gravy's contention that:

true?

I've included a poll, and it's private.

You think you are considered a RIght Wing NutJob LOL.

yes, I'm sure that's exactly why . . .

The points of view that I've expressed that he's latched on to as evidence are (in an exceptionally simplified form):

-The US, regardless of whoever is President, is not going to invade Iran because the US doesn't have the logistics capability or the political will to do so. None of the indicators that such an action is imminent are present. Not only that, but there significant disincentives to a war with Iran, and that there are insufficient incentives to doing so.

-The US, regardless of whoever is President, is not going to invade Venezuela because the US doesn't have the logistics capability or the political will to do so. None of the indicators that such an action is imminent are present. Not only that, but there significant disincentives to a war with Venezuela, and that there are insufficient incentives to doing so.

-The US does not bear sole responsibility for the calcification of the Western relationship with Russia. That, actually, culturally and politically, the US sought to draw closer to Russia for strategic purposes at the start of the decade, but a resurgent Russia fueled by energy profits was unwilling to play second-fiddle to the US.

-That Khrushchev made a poor decision by deploying the SS-3's, SS-4's and SS-5's to Cuba. His ultimate goal of getting the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey would have been accomplished without the USSR having to take any actions whatsoever within an immediate period of time. Instead, he tried to make the decisive move and gain prestige through forcing the US to bow to his will and remove the Jupiters. This backfired, because publicly he backed down and lost significant international prestige for himself and the USSR, even though the US pledged to remove the Jupiter missiles, something Kennedy had ordered to be done well before the crisis. It fueled the view both at home and abroad that he was an impulsive cowboy (hmmmmmm...who might that sound like) who was willing to take extraordinary risks, and then did not succeed. In the end, it's because of the fact that these perceptions that the rest of the CPSU leadership removed him less than two years later.

Given these positions would you classify me as what Gravy described me as being?

You think you are considered a RIght Wing NUtJob LOL.

There you go, Andaluciae. Question answered. :D

Best poll results ever.

Why? I'm a sporadic poster, who focuses on niche topics. It doesn't surprise me.

Not in the slightest.

To Andaluciae:

I've lurked these forums for awhile (so much so that I'm privy to the Myrth injoke...), and so I've read quite a bit of what you've posted.

You are not a right wing nut job.

Whilst I myself would disagree with some of what you say, painting you out as a crazy fundie isn't fair. It sounds like there's been some flaming, but if I were you I'd just let it go and not worry so much about others' definitions of you. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but flames will never burn me.

Nah, you've always seemed pretty reasonable to me.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but flames will never burn me.

*torches Free Lofeta with a flamethrower*

*torches Free Lofeta with a flamethrower*

:eek2:

My handsome face!!

:eek2:

My handsome face!!

Alas!

Andaluciae, I've always percieved you to be a very reasonable conservative type that has a good grasp on political reality.

So, no, I don't think of you as a nutjob.

It's a pretty simple question, and I figured I'd get NSG's opinion on the matter. We are a comparatively reasonable (n comparison to most people I meet) and diverse crowd, so I figured I'd ask you guys.

Is Gravy's contention that:



true?

.


Haven't noticed. Which means I've either fluked missing your nauseating mom and apple pie shite talk, or he's wrong.

You know what the definition of 'right-wing nutjob' is, don't you? It's what liberals call the person they are arguing with when they lose the argument.

You know what the definition of 'right-wing nutjob' is, don't you? It's what liberals call the person they are arguing with when they lose the argument.

You know what the definition of 'liberal/socialist' is? Its what right-wing nutjobs call the person they are arguing with when they lose the argument :p

Come on, now, don't be ridiculous. Those on the far right can genuinely be a bit crazy, as can those on the far left. It doesn't have to have anything to do with losing the argument, it can be a perfectly adequate description.

EDIT- Not to say that the OP is crazy, haven't read enough posts to make a judgement. Just a point on making blanket generalized statements.

No. You're a bit inclined to the "might makes right" argument (ie pragmatic vs. idealistic) but I wouldn't even say you're right-wing on your main subjects of interest. Right of the NSG centre, perhaps.

Nutjob? Certainly not. I don't think I've ever seen an Andaluciae post that made me think "wtf?"

For a long long time I thought you were French. :D

If you set your mind to it, I'm sure you can be :wink:

Maybe right wing.

Not a nutjob though.

yes, I'm sure that's exactly why . . .

While I doubt GnI's reason is this, I must say that it would be in character with the forum for one of its members to do so.

I jumped naked (minus a bright red wig) into a frozen pond last thursday. I'd say I'm fun.

I'd say your just crazy! or possibly depressed.....:p

Is Gravy's contention ...true?
You're undoubtedly US-Centred (in both senses) in your understanding of the world and the issues thereof, but fundamentally reasonable within that confinement, so I certainly wouldn't call you a Right-wing nutjob. On the other hand, tone down GnI's feedback to the level of "reasonable suggestion" and he might have a point that you could benefit from broadening your horizons a little. That's all; nothing major.

While I doubt GnI's reason is this, I must say that it would be in character with the forum for one of its members to do so.
Seconded. There is a tendency around here to very quickly put people into boxes, and whenever international politics is the topic, it tends to crystalise into one group that blames the US for most bad things in the world, and another that starts out from the assumption that the US isn't malicious by default, sometimes with the explicit statement that the things the US ultimately seeks to promote are democracy and progressive, liberal societies and as such not really all that bad.

These two groups find it hard to talk to each other because they don't talk about their assumptions explicitly, but try and argue a case based on them, in the process completely missing each other's point. And when that happens, name-calling isn't far away.

Seconded. There is a tendency around here to very quickly put people into boxes, and whenever international politics is the topic, it tends to crystalise into one group that blames the US for most bad things in the world, and another that starts out from the assumption that the US isn't malicious by default, sometimes with the explicit statement that the things the US ultimately seeks to promote are democracy and progressive, liberal societies and as such not really all that bad.

These two groups find it hard to talk to each other because they don't talk about their assumptions explicitly, but try and argue a case based on them, in the process completely missing each other's point. And when that happens, name-calling isn't far away.

I don't know how the "boxes" thing can be avoided, as long as there are "tag-teams" on any issue. A puts a position, B attacks it, A and C defend it, D attacks it, A defends it, B attacks C's version ... before long, it's two teams attacking each other's "collective" opinion.

I make that mistake myself quite often. I find I'm ascribing an opinion to C only because they seem to be on the same team as A, who actually said it.

The slower-moving and more thoughtful threads don't have that problem so much. They also leave less cover for the people who seem to enjoy the chaos. I wish there was some way to engineer a proper debate with two sides, signed-on members of the team who are obliged to defend each others positions. Perhaps that's impractical, due to timezones.

A clear focus in the framing of the subject certainly helps, but I've seen your well-focussed threads go a few pages without really generating much debate, so I must conclude that the majority of NSG likes acrimony and chaos.

Well if the "Iraqi' type is the freedom to live under a finally stabalizing society free from a tyrannical genocidal dictator, I wouldn't mind that either.

Good one. Umm, hate to tell you this, but when the US Troops go home, there's going to be quite a bit of genocide in the "stabilizing" Iraq.

The points of view that I've expressed that he's latched on to as evidence are (in an exceptionally simplified form):

-The US, regardless of whoever is President, is not going to invade Iran because the US doesn't have the logistics capability or the political will to do so. None of the indicators that such an action is imminent are present. Not only that, but there significant disincentives to a war with Iran, and that there are insufficient incentives to doing so.

-The US, regardless of whoever is President, is not going to invade Venezuela because the US doesn't have the logistics capability or the political will to do so. None of the indicators that such an action is imminent are present. Not only that, but there significant disincentives to a war with Venezuela, and that there are insufficient incentives to doing so.

-The US does not bear sole responsibility for the calcification of the Western relationship with Russia. That, actually, culturally and politically, the US sought to draw closer to Russia for strategic purposes at the start of the decade, but a resurgent Russia fueled by energy profits was unwilling to play second-fiddle to the US.

-That Khrushchev made a poor decision by deploying the SS-3's, SS-4's and SS-5's to Cuba. His ultimate goal of getting the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey would have been accomplished without the USSR having to take any actions whatsoever within an immediate period of time. Instead, he tried to make the decisive move and gain prestige through forcing the US to bow to his will and remove the Jupiters. This backfired, because publicly he backed down and lost significant international prestige for himself and the USSR, even though the US pledged to remove the Jupiter missiles, something Kennedy had ordered to be done well before the crisis. It fueled the view both at home and abroad that he was an impulsive cowboy (hmmmmmm...who might that sound like) who was willing to take extraordinary risks, and then did not succeed. In the end, it's because of the fact that these perceptions that the rest of the CPSU leadership removed him less than two years later.

Given these positions would you classify me as what Gravy described me as being?

I've answered the Khruschev one. As for this:

"-The US does not bear sole responsibility for the calcification of the Western relationship with Russia. That, actually, culturally and politically, the US sought to draw closer to Russia for strategic purposes at the start of the decade, but a resurgent Russia fueled by energy profits was unwilling to play second-fiddle to the US."

Basically what you're saying is that Russians are at fault for the US-Russia relationship because they wanted to be able to do independent thinking, and not play second-fiddle to the US. Yeah that sounds a bit right wing nutjobbish to me. Every country should do whatever is best for it and not be second-fiddle to anyone. For some countries (Baltic States/Nauru) that's impossible. For others, it's quite possible.

Basically what you're saying is that Russians are at fault for the US-Russia relationship because they wanted to be able to do independent thinking, and not play second-fiddle to the US. Yeah that sounds a bit right wing nutjobbish to me. Every country should do whatever is best for it and not be second-fiddle to anyone. For some countries (Baltic States/Nauru) that's impossible. For others, it's quite possible.

So, wait...are you denying that Russia didn't not want to play second-fiddle to the US?

I'm not passing a normative judgment. This seems to be what you and Gravy think I'm doing. I'm not.

I'm not saying what the US did, or what Russia did, is morally wrong. I'm just trying to accurately describe the situation. So, stop trying to put judgmental words in my mouth.

If you set your mind to it, I'm sure you can be :wink:

But I don't wannabeeeeeeeeeeee......................

I like "liberal" things like the UN, disarmament and wine..........

The more important question, is: Am I a dirty left wing liberal hippie?

The more important question, is: Am I a dirty left wing liberal hippie?

Probably.

The more important question, is: Am I a dirty left wing liberal hippie?

Dunno, do you bathe regularly? There are LOTS of left-wingers who do, you know...that is, bathe, and believe it or not, there are RIGHT wing Hippies out there, and they're just as dirty as their leftist brethren.

If you bathe regularly enough that your roomies can't hide the money under the soap, you're not-regardless of your politics.

As for Andaluciae's OP, and given evidence going back a ways, he's to the left of ME, so he Is NOT a "Right Wing Nutjob". To be a "Right Wing Nutjob" you have to be more inclined toward paranoia about Government, with a slight hostility toward government, while at the same time having few if any qualms about using that instrument (government) against people not of your own nation.

i.e. things your government does to non-citizens are only acceptable so long as said government doesn't do those things to its OWN citizens. (for instance, having zero problems with the WORST rumours out of GitMo, so long as the victims aren't Americans.) So far, I haven't seen more than one or two truly Right-Wing Nutjobs on NSG.

So, wait...are you denying that Russia didn't not want to play second-fiddle to the US?

I'm not passing a normative judgment. This seems to be what you and Gravy think I'm doing. I'm not.

I'm not saying what the US did, or what Russia did, is morally wrong. I'm just trying to accurately describe the situation. So, stop trying to put judgmental words in my mouth.

What country, in their right mind is going to want to play second-fiddle? I am calling the whole premise of Russia's fault, solely because they didn't want to play second-fiddle, complete, total and utter bullshit. No country is going to play second-fiddle if they can help it, and US should've expected it, and treated Russia accordingly, that is treat Russia as an equal, not a second-fiddle nation.

...Is Gravy's contention that: ... true?
It is true that you sometimes are a bit extreme (expecially about the good side/evil side), but hey, let who isn't sometimes a bit extreme throw the first stone.
Also, I've met here on NSG people who fit the definition of "right wing nutjob" way better than you do, so don't you call yourself names.;)

I'd always perceived you as one of the more sensible characters on these forums, but frankly, if you have to ask this sort of thing, it makes one wonder...

Does it matter what we think?

Dunno, do you bathe regularly? There are LOTS of left-wingers who do, you know...that is, bathe, and believe it or not, there are RIGHT wing Hippies out there, and they're just as dirty as their leftist brethren.

What exactly does a Right-Wing Hippy do? Stare at a mirror and yell at himself to get a haircut and get a real job?

There was only one person who came across as obsessively dogmatic in your debate and it wasn't you.

What exactly does a Right-Wing Hippy do? Stare at a mirror and yell at himself to get a haircut and get a real job?

When I hear "right wing hippie" I think of Ted Nugent.

If you were a recognised nutjob of any political complexion,

(a) the first mod to see this thread would have closed it and given you an infraction for trollbaiting, or

(b) it would have been closed by now anyway, as it would have gone completely toxic and someone would have screamed blue murder about it.

Hasn't happened, therefore ... ?

Two points:
.

remember, citizens, that Andaluciae's [I]general political stance is the topic here. Stick to it so you don't find yourself being clobbered for off-topic spam, threadjacking (as may happen if you discuss his views on a particular political matter) or flaming (of the OP or his opponents).

You're not a nutjob. You're right-wing, but most people look that way to me.
I don't know if Grave's opinion as stated applies to you as I usually don't frequent U.S.-policy threads, but I'm disinclined to say that it does.

When I hear "right wing hippie" I think of Ted Nugent.

I think more of Heinlein.

Dunno, do you bathe regularly? There are LOTS of left-wingers who do, you know...that is, bathe, and believe it or not, there are RIGHT wing Hippies out there, and they're just as dirty as their leftist brethren.

If you bathe regularly enough that your roomies can't hide the money under the soap, you're not-regardless of your politics.

LOL this is the funniest response ever.
This is even funnier than when I saw someone ask "wtf is flour!?!?" and someone replied with the wikipedia article.

Probably.

http://www.karenkuehn.com/photos/series/dreamgirl/Hippie-Girl-2.jpg

Andaluciae, right-wing? Hell no.

(Well, according to standards here in my country...)

:D

I think more of Heinlein.

Heinlein

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/RAH_1929_Yearbook.png


Nugent

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-11/1227628/ted_nugent_small.jpg

Andaluciae, right-wing? Hell no.

(Well, according to standards here in my country...)

:D

Nebraska is a country? In California he'd be Right-Wing. In Oklahoma he'd be moderate, now that's scary!

Edit: I don't think he's a nutjob in the classical sense of the word. However he's definetely wayyy on the right.

Am I a Right Wing Nutjob?

Right-wing? yeah probably...
Nut-job? You're here aren't you?
Right-Wing Nut-Job? Nah

I don't know you. All I know is that you appear to be from Ohio.

What exactly does a Right-Wing Hippy do? Stare at a mirror and yell at himself to get a haircut and get a real job?

You win NSG.

I think more of Heinlein.

Heinlein = right wing? Gosh. There's a new idea. I think I'll scrap the right and left of it then. Morally quite unconservative.... do you guys mean right wing in only one sense? right and left of which topic?

Really. I would love to know. Right = conservative to me ...but conservative means what where in the world depending on what you had in the past...yesh can we define this better?

looks, from the poll, asthough a lot of people know you.

I like "liberal" things like the UN, disarmament and wine..........

You ARE French. Admit it.