Draginol the liberal

I was in a Tony Blair part of the graph

when you write articles titled "the left kills millions yearly", people will get the odd idea you are a rightwing kook. funky, huh? not to mention your views on disenfranchising those who don't pay x amount in taxes are in conflict with the 26th amendment.

...Right. Because even if something is a fact, if it's not a pleasant one, it makes one a kook.  DDT was a perfect example of left wing environmentalists doing something without considering the consequences -- millions of deaths annually due to Malaria. Because left-wingers can't be held responsible for the consequences of their actions because they have good intentions. To imply otherwise is to be a kook. Besides, the point of that article was to use hyperbole to demonstrate how easy it is to "prove" someone is responsible for mass deaths. If you write enough things, eventually you will write something whose intent is not made clear enough and people will take it wrong.

BTW, I don't believe we should take away the vote from anyone. I just think that the system has a real long term problem with people who don't contribute to the system getting to have a say over how the money is spent. I don't have a solution to it, I was pointing out the problem. So no, I don't have a "take away the vote from poor people" bumper sticker.

Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

Intresting. It does match my views pretty much.

So Anthony and you are mirror opposites. Intersting.

well, you state that you "don't believe we should take away the vote from anyone", but you also wrote earlier, "I do believe that everyone should have to pay some sort of minimal federal tax in order to be allowed to vote or they need to serve in the military."

it's hard to reconcile the latter position (written months ago) with the former position (written minutes ago). but since you don't want to disenfranchise people currently, i'll drop the subject.

all i'm saying is if i wrote an article titled "conservatives give thousands of children asthma and adults chronic bronchitis every year" people would think i was a leftwing kook, even though the republicans did weaken air pollution control laws.

to paraphrase pulp fiction, if people view you as a rightwing kook, you should stop writing rightwing kook titles.

No, you are simply choosing to read more into my post than what was actually said. You throw around the term "disenfranchise" when I never said anything of the sort. I do believe EVERYONE should have to pay SOMETHING into the system. What's wrong with that?  That makes me a kook?

What if believe 14 year olds should be able to vote. You don't? Oh, well you must be some right wing kook not wanting to give everyone the right to vote.

I can see it now, at a dinner party "Yea, I worry that eventually we'll end up with a system where hardly anyone contributes to the system but everyone can just vote themselves goodies. We should have a system where everyone has to pay something in or find some other way to contribute to the system if they want to have a say on how that money is spent."

KABLAM! Out from the shadows...

"Aha! I'm Russell and I am declaring you a Right Wing Kook for even commenting on such an idea!"

Russell: You are a left-wing kook.  And by my very statement it makes it valid - at least by your logic. For if someone thinks something, it makes it so apparently. I also think you have webbed feet which means, therefore, you must have webbed feet. If you want to stop having webbed feet, you need to impress to me and anyone else who thinks like me that you don't have webbed feet.

Or if that satire is too much, how about this: If you write enough political articles/comments (i've got 100 articles on here more than you have and 1,719 comments) you will eventually, statistically, have someone who thinks you're a right wing kook, a left wing kook and in between.

I've got email today shrieking that I'm on John Kerry's payroll (because of the Bush electoral college article) and that "liberals" like me aren't "satisfied" controlling the major networks but now want to control "blogdom".

It's hard to tell what some of the statements mean but here's my score:

Economic Left/Right: 2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.82

draginol, let me say specifically: i do not think you are a rightwing kook. i do think your article title about the 'left killing millions yearly' was rightwing kooky sounding, even with the fact of a ddt ban, just as my example of a title 'conservatives give thousands of children asthma' was leftwing kooky sounding, even with the fact of loosening of air pollution laws.

i didn't know you were against taking away the right to vote from anyone till you specifically wrote that.

my theory was (at the beginning):
write an article with title such as "left kills millions". ------> people think(or as i wrote in my first post, "get the idea") you are a rightwing kook.
write that you think people should have to pay a minimum tax or serve in military ------> people think you are a rightwing kook.

=================
No, you are simply choosing to read more into my post than what was actually said. You throw around the term "disenfranchise" when I never said anything of the sort.
=================

i thought your position on voting was extreme because you had previously written of your belief of having only people who pay federal taxes in or serve in the military get the vote. you never used the word disenfranchise, but some people, fairly or not fairly, would lose the vote under such a system right? but as i mentioned, that you had mentioned above, since you now wrote you "don't believe we should take away the vote from anyone", that point is moot.

so, given that you say you don't want the vote taken away we are now left with:

my theory now is:
write an article with title such as "left kills millions". ------> people think(or as i wrote in my first post, "get the idea") you are a rightwing kook.

No, instead what I was saying is that everyone should be taxed some. That was the whole point.  Right now we have 40% of the adult population which pays NO federal taxes.

Instead, I think all American adults should have to pay a minimum tax. Even if it's only a few hundred bucks.

The idea isn't to take away the vote, it is to make sure everyone has a stake in how the money actually gets spent. We should give people the right to give up that tax if they are willing to give up their vote, however.

As in NCLB [a leftist view] tests don't mean much.

Hey, my results proved I was like Ghandi

Cheers

The idea isn't to take away the vote, it is to make sure everyone has a stake in how the money actually gets spent. We should give people the right to give up that tax if they are willing to give up their vote, however.

Umm, government is about alot more than spending tax money. Government decides laws, regulations and policies that affect everyone, regardless of what they pay for taxes. Say I'm a lesbian welfare-soccer mom with a family who wants a civil union and wants to protect the security of her country by voting for a democrat? Does she not have the right to security because she pays not taxes? Does she not have a right to help vote for leaders that would allow her to be in a civil union with a person of her choice?

Right now we have 40% of the adult population which pays NO federal taxes.

I wonder how many of these people are either retired, disabled, unemployed, or otherwise productive people in some other sphere of their existence? Why should these people pay income taxes if they aren't taking in any income? Are you proposing some sort of existence tax?

I reached page 3 of the test before I gave up.

The questions are so loaded. Use of words like protectionism and fundamentally which can have different meaning to different peopel don't help. The fact that every single topic is equally important with no ability to vote 'don't care' or 'no opinion' also doesn't help. Some of the questions also leave no room for alternative answers forcing a single point on the extreme sides of the debates. For example the abortion issue, "when the woman's life is not threatened" could mean threat of suicide is acceptable. What about mental health issues? What about rape? All of these issues are important but the questions totally ignore them. And this is just 1 topic.

While I tried to complete this survey, too many questions on page 3 just had me not wanting to vote, as none of the answers expressed my views. The way questions were phased also seemed very biased.

As for you bewing left of centre Brad, I'm surprised. I'd believe that in many issues you probably are. But in the issues that you are most vocal about and that are most improitant to you, you are most defintiely right of centre. Seriously questions the whole point of a test that fails to realise that.

Paul.

I also object to the phrasing and nature of some of the questions, but this is where I turned out...




It's probably not too far from correct.

VES

Does she not have the right to security because she pays not taxes?

She has a right to support herself, she doesn't have a right for others to support her.

Fee based services, that's the way to go.

VES

Wow. Mine was a bit unusual, I am dead center between left and right and one notch down towards Libertarianism. I feel I am more to the right than to the left but my religion has influenced that (ie everyone no matter race, disability, sexual preference, etc. is entitled to the same rights) a bit.

Interestingly, I wound up about where I would have expected: Slightly right of center (2.38) and a tad libertarian (-2.31)

Like others have stated, I felt some of the questions were a bit limiting in that they appeared to make certain assumptions I wouldn't normally make.

For instance "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." is phrased as an either/or question. That's leaves no room for both/neither. A strongly disagree answer could be viewed either as anti-humanitarian or as a denial of the premise that both could not co-exist equally.

Interesting test, though.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

I'm down with Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. 's alright by me.

Two tests, fairly close results. A little differentiation on the economic policy scale, but they both seem to think that I would make a good Libertarian.

-- B

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82

I'm quite out there.

Yes, I have to say that the phrasing of the questions tend to bend people left.

For instance, there was a question that went something like "Women can have careers, but their first responsiblity is as homemakers". That I had to disagree with, because of the sexual slant. I, and I think a great many people, would have leaned the other way had the question been "A parent can have a career, but their first responsiblity is as homemakers". There is nothing Conservative about chauvenism, not anymore, imho. I know as many liberal men biased about women as conservatives.

The question about abstract art, and others were skewing, I think.

I came out almost dead center at :

Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.64

Me? Left of Tony Blair and Leiberman? Me... almost exactly on the same spot as Carol Mosely Braun? Insulting, actually. I seriously doubt it. You would have to be really, really far right to come out right on this one.

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92

I dont trust that test though...

BAM!!!

Posted again due to the infamous red X....





VES

Most people think that I am somewhat right wing, but I'm not (and never have viewed myself that way, either):

I wish that there was a "neutral" vote for some of the questions.  If few of them I really felt like I didn't have a strong opinion on.