The Political Compass test
- Thread starter hoover1100
- Start date
Help Support :
westingman123
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,541
ahem...
Well, I seem to be following the mainstream...
Well, I seem to be following the mainstream...
another lefty liberal here...no surprise...
Hunter,
I was just teasing, really so do not need to know. You fit in here just great, so that definitely qualifies you as off the scale.
In the end, there are only two types of people.
Those who are content to let you be and those who demand you be what they tell you to be.
Over the last several years, the conservatives in America have been the ones doing the telling, not the liberals, so obviously you are going to have a tough row to how with folks who have suffered such oppression when presenting your, historically valid, view of conservatives. Peggy Noonan and Ross Douthat have both done 180s on most social positions these last years, I respect both of them, while not agreeing with them on many things.
I live in Europe, I see the results of over 100 years of public health care and compare it to the US. It works, we need to look over our very limited isolationist horizon in the US.
The US government isn't nearly as dreadful as you think and I far more trust the US government to run health care than the private insurers.
I never think through my positions, by the way, I just see what my red-nex family believe and take the diametrically opposite position. Who wants to actually waste time on rational analysis?
Anyway, I'll let it go at that, got something on the stove to be stirring.
I was just teasing, really so do not need to know. You fit in here just great, so that definitely qualifies you as off the scale.
In the end, there are only two types of people.
Those who are content to let you be and those who demand you be what they tell you to be.
Over the last several years, the conservatives in America have been the ones doing the telling, not the liberals, so obviously you are going to have a tough row to how with folks who have suffered such oppression when presenting your, historically valid, view of conservatives. Peggy Noonan and Ross Douthat have both done 180s on most social positions these last years, I respect both of them, while not agreeing with them on many things.
I live in Europe, I see the results of over 100 years of public health care and compare it to the US. It works, we need to look over our very limited isolationist horizon in the US.
The US government isn't nearly as dreadful as you think and I far more trust the US government to run health care than the private insurers.
I never think through my positions, by the way, I just see what my red-nex family believe and take the diametrically opposite position. Who wants to actually waste time on rational analysis?
Anyway, I'll let it go at that, got something on the stove to be stirring.
It was the traditional definition.
I LOVE old fashioned liberals. But the folks in the United States of America that seem to have co-opted the liberal movements are, in my mind, nothing other than facists in disguise. Under socialism, the state owns everything. Under facism, a small number of individuals own everything, but it is under the direction of the state. I see no difference to me, in my day to day life, between the two of them.
What we are close to reaching in the USA is that ultimate socialist wet dream: that which is not mandatory is forbidden.
I really don't have any concern what others do in their private lives, as long as they don't try and abrogate my freedom. I have zero issues with any way of life. (Indeed, I'm sufficiently radical that I believe that ALL unions should legally be 'civil unions' and if you want to get MARRIED you do it in the church of your choice. I also have no issues of >2 people choosing to enter into a union; said civil unions are ONLY for legal protection of assets and giving those you care about a say in your medical (and other) care if you cannot consent due to illness or injury.
As for government versus private insurers, can I choose 'neither'?
I LOVE old fashioned liberals. But the folks in the United States of America that seem to have co-opted the liberal movements are, in my mind, nothing other than facists in disguise. Under socialism, the state owns everything. Under facism, a small number of individuals own everything, but it is under the direction of the state. I see no difference to me, in my day to day life, between the two of them.
What we are close to reaching in the USA is that ultimate socialist wet dream: that which is not mandatory is forbidden.
I really don't have any concern what others do in their private lives, as long as they don't try and abrogate my freedom. I have zero issues with any way of life. (Indeed, I'm sufficiently radical that I believe that ALL unions should legally be 'civil unions' and if you want to get MARRIED you do it in the church of your choice. I also have no issues of >2 people choosing to enter into a union; said civil unions are ONLY for legal protection of assets and giving those you care about a say in your medical (and other) care if you cannot consent due to illness or injury.
As for government versus private insurers, can I choose 'neither'?
No.
You vill schoose vat ve say you will schoose, und -- you vill like it.
Ja, wohl!
That's part of the problem, Hunter. In Fort Collins which seems to be everybody's wet dream except those of us who grew up there, there is not one doctor who takes Medicaid. Medicare patients without additional insurance are limited to quack in a box or the Walgreen"s pharmacy walk/in center.
And that is it.
The rugged independent approach doesn't work in Northern Colorado.
I agree that we are drifting towards fascism, doubt that any third party can stop it. Did you ever read "The Cat who Walked through Walls" by Heinlein?
You vill schoose vat ve say you will schoose, und -- you vill like it.
Ja, wohl!
That's part of the problem, Hunter. In Fort Collins which seems to be everybody's wet dream except those of us who grew up there, there is not one doctor who takes Medicaid. Medicare patients without additional insurance are limited to quack in a box or the Walgreen"s pharmacy walk/in center.
And that is it.
The rugged independent approach doesn't work in Northern Colorado.
I agree that we are drifting towards fascism, doubt that any third party can stop it. Did you ever read "The Cat who Walked through Walls" by Heinlein?
> What we are close to reaching in the USA is that ultimate socialist wet dream: that which is not mandatory is forbidden. >
IMO the primary threat to our liberty these days are the strict constitutionalists, the "if a right isn't explicitly listed in the Constitution, then it's not a right" people. Many of most in this faction would be more than happy to see the calendars rolled back 50, 100 years or more on our civil rights. They are the culture warriors.
IMO the primary threat to our liberty these days are the strict constitutionalists, the "if a right isn't explicitly listed in the Constitution, then it's not a right" people. Many of most in this faction would be more than happy to see the calendars rolled back 50, 100 years or more on our civil rights. They are the culture warriors.
Jeff,
Um, actually, those aren't strict constitutionalists. The 1, 10 and 14th amendments are hated by Republicans because the do grant, clearly, the freedom to all things not specifically circumscribed.
A strict constitutionalist would actually support our being declared fully human.
Um, actually, those aren't strict constitutionalists. The 1, 10 and 14th amendments are hated by Republicans because the do grant, clearly, the freedom to all things not specifically circumscribed.
A strict constitutionalist would actually support our being declared fully human.
sigh,
I really, really shouldn't type without my glasses on. Sorry for the typos.
Jeff, Hunter, isn't it fascinating how similar our basic position is: Leave me be!
The question at stake, to me, at least, is: How do we achieve this?
I really, really shouldn't type without my glasses on. Sorry for the typos.
Jeff, Hunter, isn't it fascinating how similar our basic position is: Leave me be!
The question at stake, to me, at least, is: How do we achieve this?
> The 1, 10 and 14th amendments are hated by Republicans because the do grant, clearly, the freedom to all things not specifically circumscribed. <
The proper term for what I'm referring to is "constitutional textualist".
As for those three amendments, our government has trampled relentlessly on them over the past 30+ years, to the point where the 1st means little, and the other two mean nothing at all. E.g. read the 2005 SCOTUS decision on medical marijuana, where the feds claim interstate commerce jurisdiction over pot which is grown, sold and consumed in a single state. I can cite a dozen similar decisions over the last few decades.
The proper term for what I'm referring to is "constitutional textualist".
As for those three amendments, our government has trampled relentlessly on them over the past 30+ years, to the point where the 1st means little, and the other two mean nothing at all. E.g. read the 2005 SCOTUS decision on medical marijuana, where the feds claim interstate commerce jurisdiction over pot which is grown, sold and consumed in a single state. I can cite a dozen similar decisions over the last few decades.
Jeff,
Who can't?
All you have to do is to label a bill "patriotic" and the know-nothings and red-nex will support it.
I was unfamiliar with the term 'textualist', thank you. It sums things up very well.
Once upon a time, you could agree to disagree and not be called a traitor or un-American.
I understand Reid just announced there would be a public insurance with opt-out in the final legislation?
Who can't?
All you have to do is to label a bill "patriotic" and the know-nothings and red-nex will support it.
I was unfamiliar with the term 'textualist', thank you. It sums things up very well.
Once upon a time, you could agree to disagree and not be called a traitor or un-American.
I understand Reid just announced there would be a public insurance with opt-out in the final legislation?
That's his current approach. Olympia Snowe is the key Republican vote to avoid a filibuster, and she wants an economic "trigger" for a public option, i.e. if costs don't come down enough without a public option.
I think this rests on how much effort Obama puts into it, not Reid.
I think this rests on how much effort Obama puts into it, not Reid.
actually...
the US constitution does NOT grant rights.
It enumerates restrictions on what government can do.
What is says QUITE CLEARLY is that powers not explicitly delegated to the feds and the states are reserved to the people.
It does NOT grant rights.
People who say that (say) the Bill of Rights grants rights are WRONG.
Consider the first ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does NOT grant the right of freedom of religion - that is a NATURAL right. What it says is that CONGRESS cannot make a law linking the state to a religion.
If you go down through the BoR you will see they ALL read like this.
This document does not grant rights, it limits government. As it should!
the US constitution does NOT grant rights.
It enumerates restrictions on what government can do.
What is says QUITE CLEARLY is that powers not explicitly delegated to the feds and the states are reserved to the people.
It does NOT grant rights.
People who say that (say) the Bill of Rights grants rights are WRONG.
Consider the first ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does NOT grant the right of freedom of religion - that is a NATURAL right. What it says is that CONGRESS cannot make a law linking the state to a religion.
If you go down through the BoR you will see they ALL read like this.
This document does not grant rights, it limits government. As it should!
Hunter, of course you're correct, but constantly over the last 230 years issues have arisen where we've assumed certain basic rights, but the constitution has had nothing to say. One current example is a right to privacy.
Because the Constitution does not explicitly limit government power to intrude into people's private lives, e.g. in matters of sexual relations, marriage etc, does that mean a fundamental right to privacy does not exist in the U.S.?
Most rational people would assume that of course some degree of privacy must exist, if out of basic decency and logic if nothing else, while many or most constitutional textualists would say of course there is no guaranteed right to privacy. And this has been the right-wing's main course of attack against everything from Roe v. Wade to Lawrence v. Texas.
IMO, a constitutional amendment which explicitly limits government power in all matters of personal privacy, including relationships, reproduction and marriage, health care etc etc is long overdue, and unless we get such an amendment we're doomed to a mixture of totalitarianism on the right and socialism on the left. But crafting this amendment is easier said than done. How would it be worded, and how specifically would it limit government power?
Because the Constitution does not explicitly limit government power to intrude into people's private lives, e.g. in matters of sexual relations, marriage etc, does that mean a fundamental right to privacy does not exist in the U.S.?
Most rational people would assume that of course some degree of privacy must exist, if out of basic decency and logic if nothing else, while many or most constitutional textualists would say of course there is no guaranteed right to privacy. And this has been the right-wing's main course of attack against everything from Roe v. Wade to Lawrence v. Texas.
IMO, a constitutional amendment which explicitly limits government power in all matters of personal privacy, including relationships, reproduction and marriage, health care etc etc is long overdue, and unless we get such an amendment we're doomed to a mixture of totalitarianism on the right and socialism on the left. But crafting this amendment is easier said than done. How would it be worded, and how specifically would it limit government power?
But isn't the 'right to privacy' the 4th amendme
which reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This clearly says 'the state shall stay out of your business unless under due process there's a warrant issued.
The issue we seem to have these days is that folks actually BELIEVE that which is not mandatory is forbidden.
Of course the USSR said they wouldn't fight a war with us, but cause us to rot from within.
Hunter
which reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This clearly says 'the state shall stay out of your business unless under due process there's a warrant issued.
The issue we seem to have these days is that folks actually BELIEVE that which is not mandatory is forbidden.
Of course the USSR said they wouldn't fight a war with us, but cause us to rot from within.
Hunter
The 4th Amendment has always been narrowly interpreted. It protects against unreasonable searches of your physical person and property, and not much else. It certainly hasn't stopped the government from denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, and otherwise sticking its nose where it clearly doesn't belong in matters of family, family planning etc.
> Of course the USSR said they wouldn't fight a war with us, but cause us to rot from within. <
Very few people in the USSR said that. Far more believed we would eventually rot from within by our own accord, which is what seems to be happening.
Very few people in the USSR said that. Far more believed we would eventually rot from within by our own accord, which is what seems to be happening.
peterh770
Well-known member
How did you get your graphs to display?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=4.00&soc=-1.03
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=4.00&soc=-1.03
That was actually pretty interesting.
PeterH,
Mine wouldn't, so I did a screen shot (that funny prt-scr key) and then pasted the whole screen into Paint. Then I cropped it. Then the power to our house failed and I said, well, never mind and never did post it.
I'm in the III quadrant about where everybody else is, maybe a bit further down and to the left.
Hope that helps.
Mine wouldn't, so I did a screen shot (that funny prt-scr key) and then pasted the whole screen into Paint. Then I cropped it. Then the power to our house failed and I said, well, never mind and never did post it.
I'm in the III quadrant about where everybody else is, maybe a bit further down and to the left.
Hope that helps.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
For a Lark
I decided to try to answer these questions as conservatively as possible.
I was rewarded with a rating that is to the Right of Thatcher and Hitler, LOL...
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=8.88&soc=8.62
I decided to try to answer these questions as conservatively as possible.
I was rewarded with a rating that is to the Right of Thatcher and Hitler, LOL...
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=8.88&soc=8.62
runematic
Well-known member
Here's mine.
too true 
>Very few people in the USSR said that. Far more believed we >would eventually rot from within by our own accord, which is >what seems to be happening.
It certainly does. Of course, we have a generation of people who have been helping this along since about 1968, which doesn't help.
>Very few people in the USSR said that. Far more believed we >would eventually rot from within by our own accord, which is >what seems to be happening.
It certainly does. Of course, we have a generation of people who have been helping this along since about 1968, which doesn't help.
> we have a generation of people who have been helping this along since about 1968, which doesn't help. <
That's myopic IMO. Read some of the accusations made against Elvis and rock 'n roll music in the mid-1950's. And long before that we had things like prohibition. Every generation that comes along blames the current and former generations.
The "rot" I'm talking about, and what I think most Soviets meant, is the natural process of political decline. Ben Franklin saw this coming 222 years ago:
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults,
if they are such, because I think a general Government necessary for us; and
believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of
years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it,
when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Speech before the Constitutional Convention, 9/17/1787
That's myopic IMO. Read some of the accusations made against Elvis and rock 'n roll music in the mid-1950's. And long before that we had things like prohibition. Every generation that comes along blames the current and former generations.
The "rot" I'm talking about, and what I think most Soviets meant, is the natural process of political decline. Ben Franklin saw this coming 222 years ago:
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults,
if they are such, because I think a general Government necessary for us; and
believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of
years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it,
when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Speech before the Constitutional Convention, 9/17/1787
Oh myopic, yes...
...but I'm referring to the radical hippies who said stridently they would destroy the country. Well this philosophy - which started out awesome and morphed into something horrible, has.
Now as for the rot, yes, I agree with you -- it has been going on for a LONG time.
It's rather amazing that the framers of our system of government were as far sighted as they were -- and terrifyingly sad that the current citizens of the USA don't really give a damn. Too many have the idea that the USA can't be destroyed no matter what anyone does. Which is, of course, wrong.
...but I'm referring to the radical hippies who said stridently they would destroy the country. Well this philosophy - which started out awesome and morphed into something horrible, has.
Now as for the rot, yes, I agree with you -- it has been going on for a LONG time.
It's rather amazing that the framers of our system of government were as far sighted as they were -- and terrifyingly sad that the current citizens of the USA don't really give a damn. Too many have the idea that the USA can't be destroyed no matter what anyone does. Which is, of course, wrong.
The framers
were all very well aware of the twin evils of the revolution eating her own and what happens when religion gets the upper hand (regardless of which religion).
They knew what they were doing.
What they didn't anticipate, was that literacy would fall from virtually no one with the franchise in 1786 to 25% of those with the franchise in 2009.
Fascinating, South Carolina was the first to cause problems, even back then.
The US Constitution is the model for all good constitutions in the entire world, only at home is is spat upon. The 1968 movement ws not a threat, they were silly children. The Republicans of today and the christianists really do want to impose a theocracy.
were all very well aware of the twin evils of the revolution eating her own and what happens when religion gets the upper hand (regardless of which religion).
They knew what they were doing.
What they didn't anticipate, was that literacy would fall from virtually no one with the franchise in 1786 to 25% of those with the franchise in 2009.
Fascinating, South Carolina was the first to cause problems, even back then.
The US Constitution is the model for all good constitutions in the entire world, only at home is is spat upon. The 1968 movement ws not a threat, they were silly children. The Republicans of today and the christianists really do want to impose a theocracy.
I can read, it's writing that doesn't work so well..
I meant, of course, that illitarcy would rise from basically nill in the late 18th century to one-quarter in the 21st.
I meant, of course, that illitarcy would rise from basically nill in the late 18th century to one-quarter in the 21st.
Levi bares all
Well, no, not that way - we have to wait a few weeks for that, (tho' his high protein diet and working out with that cute ex-Mr. Alaska is certainly showing).
I mean, he just very clearly told Palin and the Republicans that if anything happens to him, the dirt will get out. All of it.
Clever boy. Not a nice boy. But a clever one.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...palin-really-shouldnt-have-cast-out-levi.html
Well, no, not that way - we have to wait a few weeks for that, (tho' his high protein diet and working out with that cute ex-Mr. Alaska is certainly showing).
I mean, he just very clearly told Palin and the Republicans that if anything happens to him, the dirt will get out. All of it.
Clever boy. Not a nice boy. But a clever one.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...palin-really-shouldnt-have-cast-out-levi.html
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Kenmore washer info needed- Latest: pierreandreply4
-
I now own a Wascomat washer- Latest: adam-aussie-vac
