Yeah how somebody on the Libeterian left side could have voted for him in 2004 don't make sense.2000 would be tough to see but possible I guess with Bush acting so moderate with all the compassionate conservative, no nation building talk. But 2004 the war was on etc., so thats hard to understand.
Test your "political compass"
- Thread starter Friday on my mind
- Start date
Yeah how somebody on the Libeterian left side could have voted for him in 2004 don't make sense.2000 would be tough to see but possible I guess with Bush acting so moderate with all the compassionate conservative, no nation building talk. But 2004 the war was on etc., so thats hard to understand.
Sorry for hijacking your thread, FOMM!
I don't think you did so no problem.
It was about political alignment so anything political is ok IMO.Continue on If you like.:1orglaugh
Here is my graph:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.75&soc=-1.13
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.75&soc=-1.13
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I don't think you did so no problem.
It was about political alignment so anything political is ok IMO.Continue on If you like.:1orglaugh
Can you hijack a thread that was hijacked to begin with?
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=64401&highlight=Political+compass
How about a little love for the Jagger-man, huh???
:1orglaugh
Man it was you Gramm was talking about you whiner.:rofl:
Edit: Here's payment for the hijacking:2 cents::2 cents::thumbsup:
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Damn! Even in that thread no one scored that close to me. I want to have a buddy who scored just like me so I can have someone to have and to hold and to laugh with and to pet and love forever! :thefinger
EDIT: Oooh! Fresno is kinda close! Who woulda thunk it!
Yeah who would have thought we would scored that close!:hatsoff:
Economic Left/Right: -1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00
A little bit more to the right than I thought I'd be, but pretty accurate.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00
A little bit more to the right than I thought I'd be, but pretty accurate.
Re: The "electronic town hall meeting" perhaps (flashback to Perot 1992) ...
Ahhh what the hell! They're just "dusty old documents" anyway. What possible relevance could they have in today's society.... right?
Hey, while we are discussing "dusty old documents", can we toss out the Magna Carta while we are at it? I mean, it's older than the Constitution for crying out aloud!
Oh and speaking of the Magna Carta - how about abolishing much of Common Law while we are at it???
cheers,
Thomas Jefferson said:
George Washington said:
James Madison said:
(emphases mine)The Declaration of Independence said:
Ahhh what the hell! They're just "dusty old documents" anyway. What possible relevance could they have in today's society.... right?
Hey, while we are discussing "dusty old documents", can we toss out the Magna Carta while we are at it? I mean, it's older than the Constitution for crying out aloud!
Oh and speaking of the Magna Carta - how about abolishing much of Common Law while we are at it???
cheers,
Economic Left/Right: 3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 6.00
I am somewhat in the neighborhood of Ehud Olmert.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 6.00
I am somewhat in the neighborhood of Ehud Olmert.
Individual charity/non-profit is right, not left which is government/absolute charity
That's what government is all about, forcing 100% of the citizens to pay and/or do something.
Being charitable and wanting to support non-profit entities by individual choice is right, not left.
Too many people think such is incompatible with capitalism when people like myself strongly believe it's essential.
You cannot have a thriving capitalist society without individuals looking at the "social contract" and giving to charity or supporting non-profits.
Yes, if you're going to have a government collect money, let it be collected by state, province or local governments first.
But there are also some of us who argue they shouldn't touch it in the first place.
If they want to mandate charity, then they can do so, but regulate it without taking it in the first place.
Once government touches money, it tends to both get redirected and build institutions around its management.
Myself, on the other hand, think a few bad apples spoil the bunch, although I also believe you have to have a "social contract" for capitalism to do what it should.
Capitalism is based on the view that people who are innovative and people who work hard share in the endeavor that people who are not so endeavoring should not be entitled to.
I see no problem with that, with people who do not work towards a goal not sharing in the profits of it.
Only those who work towards something are entitled to the fruits of their labor and management, and demonizing to the contrary gets old.
The other aspect is the "social contract," which I see government fulfilling no better than corporations, often less.
I would love to go through how the Soviet Union fulfilled the "social contract," or lack thereof, in not only cases "for the people" but also in their total lack of protection of the environment.
I don't see government forcing anyone to abide by the "social contract" any more than corporations, let alone can be very self-serving at times.
Corporations die if their consumers don't believe in them -- except, of course, monopolies, although most private monopolies are government-enact (and, therefore, not a capitalist issue but a government facist economic model one).
If people don't like Wal-Mart, they should boycott them, which is what far too few people do, or blame Wal-Mart for being "too cheap."
In that regard, I don't blame our leaders for our trade deficit with China, I blame every American who has this attitude.
Which is why individual people are responsible for most things in their nation, at least a nation as free as the US.
Which is why I don't see the government as a solution at all, but more responsible citizens, which cannot be legislated.
Again, point the finger at oneself, not otherwise, and it's why we must remain educated and vigilant to be free.
And not just a dumb consumer who feels "forced" but wants the government to protect us from "evil corporations."
I've seen plenty of "evil governments" in my time who not only have no understanding of the "social contract," but survive longer because the "consumer" can only affect them every 2-6 years, instead of every time they go to the store.
It's why I support charities and work with non-profits, as well as prefer to work for corporations I believe in that understand the "social contract."
I don't trust representative government to always keep the "social contract" in mind, much less one where a majority decides where 100% of the people will be forced into fiscal and/or personal charity.
I not only know better than my government when it comes to how I can help others, but I'm not going to allow a large, costly institution to be errected to manage it, which is only self-fulfilling.
The key has always been not to give money to the government in the first place.
I would point out this is an "absolute, collective effort" whereby 100% of the citizens support it, even if they don't agree.
That's what government is all about, forcing 100% of the citizens to pay and/or do something.
Actually, I strongly believe in that and it's why I am Libertarian-Right.
Being charitable and wanting to support non-profit entities by individual choice is right, not left.
Too many people think such is incompatible with capitalism when people like myself strongly believe it's essential.
You cannot have a thriving capitalist society without individuals looking at the "social contract" and giving to charity or supporting non-profits.
Yes and no.
Yes, if you're going to have a government collect money, let it be collected by state, province or local governments first.
But there are also some of us who argue they shouldn't touch it in the first place.
If they want to mandate charity, then they can do so, but regulate it without taking it in the first place.
Once government touches money, it tends to both get redirected and build institutions around its management.
Distrust is unobjective, but yes, I'd argue many on the Libertarian Left think corporations are somewhat evil by default.
Myself, on the other hand, think a few bad apples spoil the bunch, although I also believe you have to have a "social contract" for capitalism to do what it should.
Capitalism is based on the view that people who are innovative and people who work hard share in the endeavor that people who are not so endeavoring should not be entitled to.
I see no problem with that, with people who do not work towards a goal not sharing in the profits of it.
Only those who work towards something are entitled to the fruits of their labor and management, and demonizing to the contrary gets old.
The other aspect is the "social contract," which I see government fulfilling no better than corporations, often less.
I would love to go through how the Soviet Union fulfilled the "social contract," or lack thereof, in not only cases "for the people" but also in their total lack of protection of the environment.
I would argue that personal and fiscal freedoms go hand-in-hand, and that the "social contract" is one that indviduals make on their own, even as part of a group.
I don't see government forcing anyone to abide by the "social contract" any more than corporations, let alone can be very self-serving at times.
Corporations die if their consumers don't believe in them -- except, of course, monopolies, although most private monopolies are government-enact (and, therefore, not a capitalist issue but a government facist economic model one).
If people don't like Wal-Mart, they should boycott them, which is what far too few people do, or blame Wal-Mart for being "too cheap."
In that regard, I don't blame our leaders for our trade deficit with China, I blame every American who has this attitude.
Which is why individual people are responsible for most things in their nation, at least a nation as free as the US.
Which is why I don't see the government as a solution at all, but more responsible citizens, which cannot be legislated.
Again, point the finger at oneself, not otherwise, and it's why we must remain educated and vigilant to be free.
And not just a dumb consumer who feels "forced" but wants the government to protect us from "evil corporations."
I've seen plenty of "evil governments" in my time who not only have no understanding of the "social contract," but survive longer because the "consumer" can only affect them every 2-6 years, instead of every time they go to the store.
It's why I support charities and work with non-profits, as well as prefer to work for corporations I believe in that understand the "social contract."
I don't trust representative government to always keep the "social contract" in mind, much less one where a majority decides where 100% of the people will be forced into fiscal and/or personal charity.
I not only know better than my government when it comes to how I can help others, but I'm not going to allow a large, costly institution to be errected to manage it, which is only self-fulfilling.
The key has always been not to give money to the government in the first place.
Re: The "electronic town hall meeting" perhaps (flashback to Perot 1992) ...
Can we? i'm all for it.
I'd like to believe that at least some members of humanity have evolved enough to impart ideals of truth, liberty and justice because they want to, and not simply because a document tells them that they should or have to.
Isn't that the whole point of the document?
they aren't defined for us by any law or nation, we define them for the law and nation. :2 cents:
Can we? i'm all for it.
I'd like to believe that at least some members of humanity have evolved enough to impart ideals of truth, liberty and justice because they want to, and not simply because a document tells them that they should or have to.
Isn't that the whole point of the document?
some old dead guys said:
they aren't defined for us by any law or nation, we define them for the law and nation. :2 cents:
Re: The "electronic town hall meeting" perhaps (flashback to Perot 1992) ...
2)Tell me how do you know how many Americans think or feel about these "old" documents. I am very curious to know how you can have an opinion about other thousands of people. The word unamerican is in my very own and personal opinion fully justified when one systematically bashes, spits and trashes America, its Constitution and its army. The word undemocratic should be used for countries like Syria, Russia, China and Iran where people are condemned to stfu (sorry but this is the right term) even if they disagree with their respective governments. The charia law and the nuclear plans from countries like Syria and Iran are perhaps the things to fear rather instead of claiming USA is responsible of everything bad that happens.
3)None can implement nor put in place solutions that are irrevelant, inefficient and irrealistic. A new government system? Be sure your ideas are very well studied and based on the reality because things and theories that had not made their proofs are never if not very rarely accepted. A system allowing everything is not a democracy but an anarchy, such a system will never be tolerated and will never be allowed. There is an old saying that I said in one thread, I will repeat it so it will perhaps help you to understand the basic meaning of what is freedom. :"The freedom of ones stops where begins the freedom of others."
4)I am all for a responsible government with responsible and patriotic leaders who know how to make their citizens proud of their country. Such a government is not always easily to form let alone to elect but I don't have doubts that one day such government will reign.
1)If there weren't any documents where laws were and are clearly defined by our ancestors then our countries would never be democracies but would be anarchies where senseless civil wars would happen. The constitution and the bills of right help to maintain a social order and citizens to have their rights warranted. These "old" documents as you call them have allowed you to have the US citizenship something you should think about it and not forget. People can't do what they want because there are rules to respect and it is called basic discipline and law abidance.
2)Tell me how do you know how many Americans think or feel about these "old" documents. I am very curious to know how you can have an opinion about other thousands of people. The word unamerican is in my very own and personal opinion fully justified when one systematically bashes, spits and trashes America, its Constitution and its army. The word undemocratic should be used for countries like Syria, Russia, China and Iran where people are condemned to stfu (sorry but this is the right term) even if they disagree with their respective governments. The charia law and the nuclear plans from countries like Syria and Iran are perhaps the things to fear rather instead of claiming USA is responsible of everything bad that happens.
3)None can implement nor put in place solutions that are irrevelant, inefficient and irrealistic. A new government system? Be sure your ideas are very well studied and based on the reality because things and theories that had not made their proofs are never if not very rarely accepted. A system allowing everything is not a democracy but an anarchy, such a system will never be tolerated and will never be allowed. There is an old saying that I said in one thread, I will repeat it so it will perhaps help you to understand the basic meaning of what is freedom. :"The freedom of ones stops where begins the freedom of others."
4)I am all for a responsible government with responsible and patriotic leaders who know how to make their citizens proud of their country. Such a government is not always easily to form let alone to elect but I don't have doubts that one day such government will reign.
1) Prof V is enough experienced with politics and management, he knows well enough both to have a good analysis and profiling and what can be done or not. Unanswered questions are things you have to think about if you want to form a new government and what also matters is the stability of that new form of government. Until you have unanswered questions or theories that are not based on the ground and real first hand experience it will never work. A people choice's government is kinda like an UN for government, I am not sure many countries want this.
2) How do you know it will work if you can't answer yourself some of the questions of the new system you want to define.The problem is that the younger generation of people post 1986 born people are perhaps not taught of how work their political system and what are different forms of governments. It start by a political education so the person wouldn't be and won't having troubles to understand new laws and new amendments. American remained the sole superpower and many countries have americanized their culture, so it is a mark that America still has power in the word.
3) The question is "are you so sure that other people want to follow your utopias?" I am highly doubting someone will help you in politics because to be honest many of your ideas are based on things that are not real and in a situation that is subject to change at every moment. Senators and governors will not back up blindly someone who has not realistic and efficient ideas. They also value people who contributed to their country in terms economy, strategy and politically. The "tyrants" as you call them will never leave their seats you will have to kill them if you want power another reason why your system will never work. In politics like in any other field, the law of the fittest prevails, the law of mother theresa has to be forgotten. Think all Americans are despaired, many of them are that is sure but I wouldn't say all of them. The world liked when Clinton kissed the UN's ass and everyone knows it. The world doesn't like when the sole superpower remains and smashes rogue regimes without the goddamn worthless EU of 27 and UN approval. I will remember you one thing that America has no lesson and no order to receive from the UN and/or from any other country.
4) Depends of which Americans you are speaking Fox. Because some have an education and know politics and others are totally ignorant or clueless at politics. Many people don't want to go to war because they have been indoctrinated by Michael Moore's lies and by the wrong doing of liberal medias. I can tell you also that I know people from cars, pens and law enforcement posting boards who were and are proud to serve their country. The wars are not nice but sometimes they are necessary. Yes, wars cost lives but sometimes they prevent rogue regimes to nuke democratic countries.The transition will not be peaceful if you want to implement something then you have to move things and it is not with all your beautiful talk that it will work. The keywords for succeeding in politics are first hand experience, straight to the point and capacity to reunite people as well as be a very good leader. Those qualities are not given to everyone.
Two, different concepts ... general laws v. form of government ...
I hope people note there are two, different concepts ...
1. Laws and Common Law that is constantly under change, debate, etc...
2. Absolute Process and Articles that define those constant changes, and are far more difficult to change
As I've regularly pointed out, I am not happy with #1, not at all.
We all have problems with #1, and do our best to see them addressed.
But what I am more content with is #2, because our absolute processes and articles that define how we (US) change things are based on 400 years of ideas and changes themselves.
I am not happy with all of #2, but I am happy that #2 does allow any citizen to put forth a change and see if happen if a supermajority agrees.
I really wish some people would not mix the two, let alone call me a "right winger" or say "you must watch Fox News" merely because I believe in a Constitutional form of government.
If the concept of a Constitutional form of government is "so evil," then why have most countries adopted the Anglo-American approach over the last 400+ years?
It's one way that not only defines how laws will be made or overturned, but it also defines the articles in which how processes can be created, changes or revoked themselves.
Everyone and I mean everyone (or an overwhelming majority) must agree when it comes to articles in how processes will be handled.
Again, anyone who has been involved with a peer organization, non-profit, etc... where they are an officer knows this first hand.
The last thing you can do is present a biased viewpoint of your own opinion, and you have to involve everyone as every view can be equally valid.
I hope people note there are two, different concepts ...
1. Laws and Common Law that is constantly under change, debate, etc...
2. Absolute Process and Articles that define those constant changes, and are far more difficult to change
As I've regularly pointed out, I am not happy with #1, not at all.
We all have problems with #1, and do our best to see them addressed.
But what I am more content with is #2, because our absolute processes and articles that define how we (US) change things are based on 400 years of ideas and changes themselves.
I am not happy with all of #2, but I am happy that #2 does allow any citizen to put forth a change and see if happen if a supermajority agrees.
I really wish some people would not mix the two, let alone call me a "right winger" or say "you must watch Fox News" merely because I believe in a Constitutional form of government.
If the concept of a Constitutional form of government is "so evil," then why have most countries adopted the Anglo-American approach over the last 400+ years?
It's one way that not only defines how laws will be made or overturned, but it also defines the articles in which how processes can be created, changes or revoked themselves.
Everyone and I mean everyone (or an overwhelming majority) must agree when it comes to articles in how processes will be handled.
Again, anyone who has been involved with a peer organization, non-profit, etc... where they are an officer knows this first hand.
The last thing you can do is present a biased viewpoint of your own opinion, and you have to involve everyone as every view can be equally valid.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72
So, apparently...I'm a bunch of negative numbers? :dunno:
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72
So, apparently...I'm a bunch of negative numbers? :dunno:
Similar threads
