[voodoo]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18

Hmmm...

Wonder what that means?

I've always considered myself a hardcore Republican.

No no you are far too nice and intelligent to be that!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:


this is a stupid useless post

Fixed.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Hmmm...

Wonder what that means?

I've always considered myself a hardcore Republican.

Time to vote for Kerry.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18

Hmmm...

Wonder what that means?

That free online tests are bull****?

just a thought.

[E's Lil Theorem]

The other test:

left/right -1.1391 (-0.0686)
pragmatism +0.9602 (+0.0578)

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
That free online tests are bull****?

just a thought.

Perhaps, though both my scores are somewhat near the middle, which is where I stand overall.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Damn... just... damn... Those are almost identical to my dad's numbers last time he tested, and he's former Army intel.



Well, Simey's more Eco. Rt. than you are.

I figured that I would be about the most right leaning person here. I think perhaps the only thing that kept me from being even more towards the right was that I think immigration is a good thing for a country versus being a bad thing overall.

Aside from that, I believe the only real function of the government is defense and to protect one person from another. If I were in charge there would be no social spending, no subsidies, no barriers to trade, and taxes at a bare minimum that would be needed to fund the schools, police, firefighters, military, and courts.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
If I were in charge there would be no social spending, no subsidies, no barriers to trade, and taxes at a bare minimum that would be needed to fund the schools, police, firefighters, military, and courts.

You'd have problems with the taxes at a bare minimum because no social spending would mean extremely high crime rates so the spendings for police and courts would barely be minimal.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You'd have problems with the taxes at a bare minimum because no social spending would mean extremely high crime rates so the spendings for police and courts would barely be minimal.

He probably favors no restrictions on gun ownership or the right to self defense. It could be a very low crime society, once a little winnowing has occurred.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You'd have problems with the taxes at a bare minimum because no social spending would mean extremely high crime rates so the spendings for police and courts would barely be minimal.

As if social spending is needed to keep crime low?

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Perhaps, though both my scores are somewhat near the middle, which is where I stand overall.

Yeah, like I said before, it can probably give a good prediction about your most probable general stance on a given set of issues - but there are cases where people can deviate from that general situation, especially when two principals which are generally non-exclusive oppose one another in a concrete case.

I want to highlight the importance of a set of issues. One or few highly prioritized values can sway a person to vote against his other values and preferences in the interests of the higher values.

Also, people align themselves with political parties for a variety of intangible or arbitrary reasons. It's difficult to evaluate those in a simple html form based quiz.

As such, there may be a correlation between the quiz's results and a persons views on a set of political and economic issues, but it can't answer the question of what political party one feels most associated with most of the time.

Not to mention I was including online love and IQ quizzes in the set of 'free online tests,' which, I maintain, are bull.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Millennium:
We've all seen the political compass before, but it seems to have expanded significantly. It's no longer the tiny ten-question quiz it once was; it seems to be going into much more detail now.

My results:
Economic Left/Right: 4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26

If I recall correctly, last time I took this quiz there were only five points per axis; they now measure out of ten, so on the previous quiz's scale I'd rate an Economic 2 and a Social 0 (I don't think it was granular enough to count an 0.13 at that time).

I find this interesting. Last time I took this quiz, I was an Economic 1/Social 1, or slightly right/authoritarian. I've dropped to just a hair below the line on social issues (putting me slightly on the libertarian side of things) but I've moved rather sharply to the right on economic issues.

I don't know. Do you guys think that periodic self-evaluations like this are useful?

Milennium,

I've never seen the Political Compass before.

I'm about to take the test. But the ways where I think this knowledge might be useful is to quickly understand which policies/candidates best reflect your own sensibilities.

How many people really know how they feel on every poitical/social/economic issue? Not everyone. (Think of the poll results you've seen with a significant # of "DON'T KNOW" responses.)
This Political Compass knowledge might help such an individual.

It can be interesting to see how you respond to events in the news. Are you responsive at all or do you remain steadfast despite changing conditions? What 'moves' you?

How you have changed over a certain period of time. (Older and colder? Or older and softer around the brain/heart...not just softer around the middle?)

It would be helpful if one needed to know where other people stood in order to serve them better (It might be useful to a publication or even a site like this!).

Or if you wanted to prepare arguments for/against a known political POV, having this info about your opposition would help.

Or if you wanted to know if you were compatible with a potential romantic interest.

Yes, I think it's good to know.

But let's see what I think AFTER taking the test. LOL

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

edit: I'm not sure how this works, but here are my stats:

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

Apparently I'm right where Ghandi is on the chart.



edit 2:
1 left/right -1.8423 (-0.1109)
2 pragmatism +1.7898 (+0.1077)

This one makes more sense to me, because it positioned me almost smack dab in the center of the whole grid.

Thanx for the link. I would've found it but the link is easier.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You'd have problems with the taxes at a bare minimum because no social spending would mean extremely high crime rates so the spendings for police and courts would barely be minimal.

Why? Show me the causal link between social spending and low crime rates.

[CreepingDeth]

I did this last year with almost all the way to the right economic and a 2 or 3 on social stuff. These are bs. Period.
I've said this before, but the comparison of political ideologies including libertarianism, fascism, communism, etc., all in one group, cannot be displayed on a 2d graphic. Political thought is more dynamic than a Cartesian plane. I find political thought to be more branching, with anarchism at the bottom, conservatism a little higher, liberalism much higher, and communism and fascism opposing each other on opposites way at the top, but that'd only be 2d representation. Don't listen to any of these crap scores.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Why? Show me the causal link between social spending and low crime rates.

There is none. In fact, quite the opposite can be said.
Millennium, one question. What do you consider yourself outside of these bogus scores. Libertarian, liberal, moderate, etc.?

[aberdeenwriter]

Economic LEFT/right: - 1.38

Social LIBERTARIAN/autoritarian: - 1.23

Pretty near the center.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
There is none. In fact, quite the opposite can be said.
Millennium, one question. What do you consider yourself outside of these bogus scores. Libertarian, liberal, moderate, etc.?

I've tried for some time to stay outside the labels, so I actually find my apparent rightward shift to be disturbing. The downward shift I don't mind so much, because that puts me closer to the center anyway, though I'm surprised to find myself slightly under the line.

I figure that if I can make all sides angry, I must be doing something right. I'm going to have to do some long, hard thinking on my economic beliefs, though.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I've tried for some time to stay outside the labels, so I actually find my apparent rightward shift to be disturbing. The downward shift I don't mind so much, because that puts me closer to the center anyway, though I'm surprised to find myself slightly under the line.

I figure that if I can make all sides angry, I must be doing something right. I'm going to have to do some long, hard thinking on my economic beliefs, though.

That's it.



Come to the dark side!

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Why? Show me the causal link between social spending and low crime rates.

You think people will just happily starve to death?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You think people will just happily starve to death?

I don't know where you live, but most people here support themselves through work, not social spending.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Why? Show me the causal link between social spending and low crime rates.

It should cause the opposite since more social spending = less ability for people to live and fend for themselves.

You think a person who is responsible and pays his or her own way is going to turn to crime?

People who are going to be on social welfare/food stamps/medicare/social security most of their lives are nothing but a burden and it's not my responsibility nor a good use of my tax money to take care of them

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You think people will just happily starve to death?

No, they get a job and work, the low ~5% unemployment rate makes that possible... or if they just want to be lazy bastards, they can live in their Mommy and Daddy's basement and play D&D until they're 50.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't know where you live, but most people here support themselves through work, not social spending.

You know well that even where you live not all people are able to support themselves. No social spending would mean they are either content with dying from starvation or organize their food otherwise.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You know well that even where you live not all people are able to support themselves. No social spending would mean they are either content with dying from starvation or organize their food otherwise.

There are no poor or homeless in the US as well you know.

Didn't you watch the propaganda videos from the 50s and 60s??

[Zimphire]

There will ALWAYS be social spending for those needing it.

What gets my goat are the people getting S.S. because they are alcoholics and can't keep a job.

I have no problem with social services for those who NEED it.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You know well that even where you live not all people are able to support themselves. No social spending would mean they are either content with dying from starvation or organize their food otherwise.

No, they can and do support themselves. They get a job, or sometimes 2. It's called living within your means, everyone can do it.

Edit: for the truly disabled, there are long term programs, which don't apply to my comments. Those programs = good. But, if a person's healthy, they have no excuse.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There will ALWAYS be social spending for those needing it.

Not when Spoogepieces were in charge. Which is what we're talking about here.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You know well that even where you live not all people are able to support themselves. No social spending would mean they are either content with dying from starvation or organize their food otherwise.

Get a job or get some donations from a private institution, not some government handout that out of every $100 $30 goes to to the person who is supposed to "benefit." No welfare state, please.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Not when Spoogepieces were in charge. Which is what we're talking about here.

In my country social spending would be a function of the private sector and NOT using taxes. I was referring to spending as a function of government outlays.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
In my country social spending would be a function of the private sector and NOT using taxes. I was referring to spending as a function of government outlays.

Look at this:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So does that get rid of welfare and such on a national level?

I think we should only pay a 10% flat tax. There is so much waste spending it's ridiculous.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
..There is so much waste spending it's ridiculous.

Many of us whether liberal, conservative, democrat or republican will agree with you there. We might, however, disagree as what "waste" actually is.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Many of us whether liberal, conservative, democrat or republican will agree with you there. We might, however, disagree as what "waste" actually is.

Liberals think national security is waste.
Conservatives think handouts are waste.
Lerkfish things investment in prongs is waste.

Where is he anyway?

[Ω]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, they get a job and work, the low ~5% unemployment rate makes that possible... or if they just want to be lazy bastards, they can live in their Mommy and Daddy's basement and play D&D until they're 50.

Don't make me role my lucky D20 on you

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Liberals think national security is waste.
Conservatives think handouts are waste.
....

Try to stay away from generalizations. I know it's very common here in the PL to make such statements, but if you want people to listen to your message and not concentrate on the words you use, try to avoid them.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Try to stay away from generalizations. I know it's very common here in the PL to make such statements, but if you want people to listen to your message and not concentrate on the words you use, try to avoid them.

Yeah, but you can get a general attitude. Generalization is just that�general. Average opinion in above group.

[Millennium]

Conservatives want to protect the people from those who would harm them.
Liberals want to make everybody happy.

These are not their only wants, but they are the chief priorities of each side, the thing which each side sees as the main function of government. Pretty much everything either side does can be traced back to these, one way or another, be it cutting back in a non-priority area to make room for the priority, or advancing the priority foolishly -even recklessly- in the face of evidence that the move may be undesirable or desirable but unsustainable.

[angaq0k]

Tests are funny.

Cosmopolitan is full of'em.

My results:

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

[ringo]

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56

Similar to the first time I went to that site in 2001...leftist authoritarian.

left/right -1.2841 (-0.0773)
pragmatism +1.4642 (+0.0881)

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Tests are funny.

Cosmopolitan is full of'em.

My results:

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

[Spits out his 'Dew]

That practically puts you in Stalin's economic policy. That's waay out there, even for some stupid test.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
[Spits out his 'Dew]

That practically puts you in Stalin's economic policy. That's waay out there, even for some stupid test.

Before I trust such a questionnaire, I'll need some validity and fidelity tests.

Then we'll talk about seriousness of these results...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
[Spits out his 'Dew]

That practically puts you in Stalin's economic policy. That's waay out there, even for some stupid test.

Yeah, angaq0k and olepigeon are probably the most liberal members of MacNN. No doubt they'd make the Dali Lama look like a Gingrich Republican.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
So does that get rid of welfare and such on a national level?

I don't think social spending should be done on a national level. At least let the states decide individually to choose such a path.

I think we should only pay a 10% flat tax. There is so much waste spending it's ridiculous.

I agree on a flat tax for everyone.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, angaq0k and olepigeon are probably the most liberal members of MacNN. No doubt they'd make the Dali Lama look like a Goldwater Republican.

I wouldn't consider him a conservative. Goldwater works better.
Yeah, they're waaaaaay out there. My wallet'd be hiding in the corner if those guys ever ran this country. "We're going to take everything away from your for the greater good. Here's your gray uniform and your government job. Thank you, come again."

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, angaq0k and olepigeon are probably the most liberal members of MacNN. No doubt they'd make the Dali Lama look like a Gingrich Republican.

Yet, I consider myself conservative in many aspects.

What one need to remember is that I am Canadian, English is my second language, and I lived in 4 different cultures over the last 40 years, with an atypical upbringing compared to most North Americans.

Therefore, the results are going be skewed to the point that I cannot be compared to most Americans, Europeans, and even Canadians who answered this questionnaire...


But MacNStein, I'll take this as a compliment anyway...



Cheers!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I wouldn't consider him a conservative. Goldwater works better.
Yeah, they're waaaaaay out there. My wallet'd be hiding in the corner if those guys ever ran this country. "We're going to take everything away from your for the greater good. Here's your gray uniform and your government job. Thank you, come again."

Yeah, I'd move somewhere more conservative, like China.

[The Mick]

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18

Hmmm...

Wonder what that means?

I've always considered myself a hardcore Republican.

maybe you should vote Libertarian instead? www.lp.org

my results: Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

last time (around new years day) i got: economic -4.12, social -4.31 so i'm more or less consistent.

on the other test i scored:left/right
-1.6976 (-0.1022)

pragmatism
+1.5443 (+0.0930)

[UNTeMac]

Economic: -6.25
Social: -5.23

Interesting.

I'd love to hear some people's answers in here on the homemaker question and the sex section.