View Full Version : Your Political Profile
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blcartoonquiz.htm
BMT
Goggles Pizano
06-13-2005, 19:05
Hmmm. Die hard Republican I am! How did they know? :D
Roguish Lawyer
06-13-2005, 19:06
Boy, BMT, that was a long quiz!
You are a pure, unabashed, die-hard Republican loyalist. You remain fiercely dedicated to fighting the twin evils of terrorism and liberalism, and you'd walk across a field of land mines if it meant casting a deciding vote for a Republican president. In your view, there is no higher form of patriotism than defending America against the Democratic Party and every elitist, French-loving, religion-mocking, America-hating, terrorist-appeasing ideal for which it stands.
Peregrino
06-13-2005, 19:22
I even like the way they describe "Die-Hard Republicans". :D Peregrino
aricbcool
06-13-2005, 20:29
You are a devoted Republican. You tend to walk in lockstep with the party, even if you have not agreed with every decision Republican leaders have made. The few differences you have are nothing compared to your complete and utter disdain for the Democratic Party and the elitism, cowardice, and godlessness for which it stands.
"elitism, cowardice, and godlessness for which it stands."
AMEN
SnafuRacer
06-14-2005, 00:31
You are a solid Republican. You are not as fiercely ideological or uncompromising as others in the party, but nonetheless remain a reliable supporter. If you could have your way, you'd like to see Republican leaders take a slightly more pragmatic approach on certain issues - and dial down some of their nakedly partisan and bitterly divisive rhetoric.
I am not as dialed into the national politics as some of you, but the above result kinda mirrored my convictions.
Trip_Wire (RIP)
06-14-2005, 00:58
I didn't take the test; however, I feel that I am a "die hard" Republican! The last Democrat that I voted for was JFK! :munchin
Ok I took the test today! Here is the result:
You are a pure, unabashed, die-hard Republican loyalist. You remain fiercely dedicated to fighting the twin evils of terrorism and liberalism, and you'd walk across a field of land mines if it meant casting a deciding vote for a Republican president. In your view, there is no higher form of patriotism than defending America against the Democratic Party and every elitist, French-loving, religion-mocking, America-hating, terrorist-appeasing ideal for which it stands.
Pretty accurate! :lifter :D
Hmmm. Die hard Republican I am! How did they know? :D
Oh, well. So was I. My wife says that the Huns are out to the left of me somewhere.
Pete
I got the same one as Aric.
Is it just me or is anyone else kind of annoyed that the "quiz" is basically just seeing how you respond to partisian attacks? Maybe this is just my youthful idealism(see naivity) but I think all of the partisian political problems we're going through right now is the biggest problem in America. I usually don't agree with Dems but I don't think its right to hate or trash them because they see the best way to help America is through a different means then most members of the GOP believe.
To be honest I think the party system is outdated and it would help America if we did away with it.
Now that I said that I can't wait for the attacks to begin :munchin
Peregrino
06-15-2005, 11:15
Let's see if I've got this right: You want to eliminate the two-party system we currently have. Why, when it serves the politicians so well? What would you advocate replacing it with - a parlimentary system? Europe (and other socialist bastions) seems to function so well with their own version of the "theater of the absurd". By comparison we have a functioning polity. The extremes of the two parties use the same tactics to diametrically opposed ends (Fascism and Socialism (not really opposed, both represent total loss of most freedom; for the average citizen it's mostly a flavor thing)), and the centerists could properly be called "Republicrats" since their actions (though not necessarily their rhetoric) are virtually indistinguishable one from the other. The American "sheeple" are obviously content with the theatrics, why rock the boat? Inquiring minds, etc. :munchin Peregrino
First off, my political quiz found me to be "You are a moderate. You agree with Democrats on some issues and Republicans on others, while rejecting the blind, naked partisanship of both sides. You base your vote on issues rather than ideology and principle rather than party, which makes you the quintessential swing voter the media loves to fawn over." Basically I think most of what passes as politics is ridiculous. As far as foreign policy goes, I side with Kissinger and JFK. I'm also a civil libertarian. When they said don't tread on me, I believed it.
Peregrino wrote, "Fascism and Socialism (not really opposed, both represent total loss of most freedom; for the average citizen it's mostly a flavor thing" I would comment that he's correct that they're not opposed. The opposite of Fascism would be a Democracy and either one could be Socialist. In terms of lost of freedom though, of the two, Fascism is certainly the greater limiter of freedom.
A bit of clarification: Socialism is a "Robin Hood" approach to economics, not government. It's not without merit, but applied too far can hog tie economies. As a capitalist, I believe that humans (as a polity) are innately greedy, selfish creatures. Socialism is an effort by some to force some mercy, equity and justice into what appears to the Socialist as a slightly evil way of conducting business. As I see it, the truth is that capitalism isn't immoral, its amoral. This produces harsh realities for some (the poor and downtrodden) and for the compassionate that's too tough to handle. Remember that the original Socialist were devout Christians trying to apply Godly principles to governement. We should be thankful. The Lefty Democrat in this country is still to the right of most European Social Democrats.
Back to the point? Our two party system is hegemonic and while Republicans and Democrats state they're diametrically opposed, in terms of economics, they're pretty equal. The joke goes, the Corporations own the Republicans and rent the Dems. Both parties are big, strong, and loaded with cash. At no time in the near future will we see a multi-party system.
My point is also that democracies are slow, messy things. Contrarialy, localizing control and having only two parties allows us to cut through a lot of red tape. Having essentially a Republican Exec, Sen, and Judicial branch of governement also helps.
Do I think having a multi-party system would be good for government and healthy for the population? Yes. Would it slow us down? Yes. Will it ever happen? Probably not in my lifetime. There's too much money involved in keeping things the way they are.
Interested to see if I get bashed on this one.
Peregrino
06-15-2005, 13:12
The opposite of Fascism would be a Democracy and either one could be Socialist. In terms of lost of freedom though, of the two, Fascism is certainly the greater limiter of freedom.
Interested to see if I get bashed on this one.
I'm not going to bash, but I am going to invite you to study your position a bit more. Fascism is also an economic system. It's all about who controls the instruments of production. Check the dictionary - "ism" describes economic systems, "cracy" describes political systems. Do not confuse the rhetoric of WWII bashing the Axis powers with a true picture of social, political, and economic reality. The Germans and Italians were a lot happier under fascism than the Russians and Chinese under socialism (don't even begin to claim they were communist in anything other than name). They were rightly condemned for their politics - not their economics. All were at least nominally democratic. They were just selective about who was enfranchised. The Nazis were very democratic right up until the start of hostilities - then they voted Hitler everything he needed to seize and maintain power for the duration of the "emergency". That is a standard model pretty much everywhere. I stand by my contention - the practical differences for the average citizen between fascism and socialism are nil. The common man gets screwed either way. Only laisse faire capitalism (Milton Freidman) rewards the average person for initiative and industry. It's always easy to be compassionate when the money comes out of somebody else's pocket, aka socialism. Peregrino
Roguish Lawyer
06-15-2005, 13:33
Check the dictionary - "ism" describes economic systems, "cracy" describes political systems.
You and I think alike, but I don't think this statement is entirely correct.
http://www.m-w.com/
Main Entry: ism
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
Main Entry: -cracy
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French -cratie, from Late Latin -cratia, from Greek -kratia, from kratos strength, power -- more at HARD
1 : form of government; also : state having such a form <monocracy>
2 : social or political class (as of powerful persons) <mobocracy>
3 : theory of social organization <technocracy>
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: Na·zism
Pronunciation: 'nät-"si-z&m, 'nat-
Variant(s): or Na·zi·ism /-sE-"i-z&m/
Function: noun
Etymology: Nazi + -ism
: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Good catch Peregrino, I agree. I should pay more attention to my Greek. From an online encyclopedia:
"While failing to outline a coherent program, fascism evolved into a new political and economic system that combined corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-Communism in a state designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system. This was a new capitalist system, however, one in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries." I couldn't have written it better.
That said, the Nazi's were Socialist. One example of a Fasistic Socialism.
And I agree that Laissez-faire (as opposed to dirigisme) in theory gives more oppportunity to the regular Joe. However, in modern times, most western governements are a combination of the two. The US's bailout of the airline industry after 9/11 is a good example of what many call corporate welfare or corporate socialism. Some might call the bailout a double standard for a free market economy, the consequences of not doing so would have been disasterous. What we have is more Pro-Business than true Laisses Faire.
Personnally, I'm a fan of the Buddhist Middle Path hence my moderate approach.
Marxist social evolution would have people "evolve" to a pure communism. I think we can all agree this is BS. The Chinese and the Soviets were nominally proletarian, certainly dictatorships. Ineffective at manageing economies and extremely harsh on their people.
So yes, for the Joe on the street, freedoms were nil for both systems.
You wrote, "They were just selective about who was enfranchised." Definately, and my contention remains that having a multi-party system would keep such things from happening. Further checks and balances. . .
Books
sorry to take so long to get back to you I was out PT'ing in the rain... gotta love it :lifter
Let's see if I've got this right: You want to eliminate the two-party system we currently have. Why, when it serves the politicians so well? What would you advocate replacing it with - a parlimentary system? Europe (and other socialist bastions) seems to function so well with their own version of the "theater of the absurd". By comparison we have a functioning polity. The extremes of the two parties use the same tactics to diametrically opposed ends (Fascism and Socialism (not really opposed, both represent total loss of most freedom; for the average citizen it's mostly a flavor thing)), and the centerists could properly be called "Republicrats" since their actions (though not necessarily their rhetoric) are virtually indistinguishable one from the other. The American "sheeple" are obviously content with the theatrics, why rock the boat? Inquiring minds, etc. :munchin Peregrino
Well I don't agree with the parliamentary system. I wouldn't really say our polity is functioning because the "Republicrats" depending on their party are getting pushed more to the left and the right. And as we are at each other's throats more and more the poles are pushed futher and further apart which just isn't maintainable in a republic such as ours. Also if you look at today's republican party there is ALOT more top down control then there ever has been in history. If you see one person dissent from the ranks automatically they're a "republican in name only" and Fox News jumps all over them.
I just think that we should have people run on what their ideas and beliefs actually are not what A)their party "stands for" and B)what they think will get them elected. I mean I think the party system was a huge help in the days before the amount of information avaliable to the public was a large as it is today. To be honest this idea might not work for tons of reasons but I believe that it can't be much worse then what we have today.
I wouldn't really say the American "sheeple" are content with the theatrics I just believe that as of this point nobody honestly believes that the system can be changed. There's just so much inertia in a system like we have that to change it would require almost a whole new revolution or even something as extreme as a civil war.
-Jon
Peregrino
06-15-2005, 13:54
You and I think alike, but I don't think this statement is entirely correct.
[
Sorry - I was going off of old readings. Language changes as time goes by and the WWII experience has obviously corrupted our modern definition of fascism. The definition I originally learned was based on economics and described it as private control of the means of production with state regulation of the output. Exactly what Germany, Italy, and the United States (despite FDR's constant meddling and socialist experiments) did to revive their economies prior to WWII. Using that definition many (especially the Republican bashers on the extreme left) would argue that the US today has many similarities to classical fascism in that the government seriously interferes through regulation, etc. with the production process. Since individuals still nominally own the means of production, it's not socialism though the Democrats would incite class warfare and "Robin Hood" the prosperity to the undeserving to further their political power. At least you didn't bash me for not crediting LF capitalism to Adam Smith. (I prefer Friedman's more modern interpretation.) Peregrino
jon448, when you say parlamentry system, are you referring to the Westminster system or some other one? I would say New Zealand's system better represents the people better than the American system.
Now that I've wound some people up, I shall step back and wait for the fireworks. :lifter
I'm looking forward to this one.
Huey to be honest I've never looked at New Zealand's system so I can't say either way. I was thinking more along the lines of the Westminster system.
I'll check out what I can about the NZ parliament and then perhaps explode back on scene :rolleyes:
Ours is Westminster, well, a variation on it. For awhile we were more British than the British with regards to Parliament.
Well you caught me talkin out of my ass on that one.... I've never really researched various 'types' of parliaments so what I meant was the British system.
Just a note before I head to lunch. As far as I can tell, this is one of the more sane, sober discussions of politics I've come across in a looong time. Thanks for that. Typical, I guess, of fellows who, in the SF line of work, must hold strong values/opinions and yet be intellectually flexible enough to entertain multiple options. This is a great community. Books
Roguish Lawyer
06-15-2005, 14:46
At least you didn't bash me for not crediting LF capitalism to Adam Smith. (I prefer Friedman's more modern interpretation.) Peregrino
LOL -- I didn't bash you at all. Just a little nitpicking. ;)
I think two large parties comes out of western evolution.
Having a multiparty system à la Brittland, USA, Sweden, demands that those parties playing the game can cooperate. A strong party will grab more seats, an alliance may not be equally effective in showing a unified front and coordinating it. Ineffectiveness is not attractive. It becomes a little easier in smaller countries.
We haven't been too hot on theocracy lately, so the main ambitions are socialism and capitalism (or conservative, or real liberalism...). Other denominations just aren't good enough at organizing themselves and don't carry enough impact after the small percentage they receive.
On the other hand, Sweden has had a multiparty system where the losers, the right, only has seized power once in a long time. Now, when the Social Democrats are strangling the country and itself to death, a quite feeble, IMO, alliance of the four center to right wing parties will probably unseat them in the next election. But during the current term the Social Democrats have depended on Flower Power (MP) and the Left Party/Communists (V(PK)) for power - i.e., two parties with small percentages has dictated terms way out of proportion to their size.
Brittland system or not, I just cannot see how it could work with satisfaction in the USA. I like the US system, more or less.
I seem to agree with what Peregrino writes pretty much anywhere.
Worth what you paid for it...
It sounds to me like you're getting multi party confused with an MMP type deal. In Britain, the parties are not required to get along, since (as I understand it) they operate a first past the post election. This does not require the support of minor parties to become government.
brewmonkey
06-15-2005, 20:38
You are a pure, unabashed, die-hard Republican loyalist. You remain fiercely dedicated to fighting the twin evils of terrorism and liberalism, and you'd walk across a field of land mines if it meant casting a deciding vote for a Republican president. In your view, there is no higher form of patriotism than defending America against the Democratic Party and every elitist, French-loving, religion-mocking, America-hating, terrorist-appeasing ideal for which it stands.
It sounds to me like you're getting multi party confused with an MMP type deal. In Britain, the parties are not required to get along, since (as I understand it) they operate a first past the post election. This does not require the support of minor parties to become government.
Probably guilty as charged. Thanks for the correction.
Detonics
06-18-2005, 02:20
How about we keep our current system and decentralize the meeting points? Modern communication has alleviated much of the need for residency in Washington.
Most of the lower forms of politicking take place while the "representatives" are far away from their constituents and immersed in the "rarified air" of the Nations Capitol.
Streamline the subcommittees and lessen the power they wield. Eliminate voice votes. Let the people see the true voting records.
Mandatory quarterly “fireside chat” by both the President and Vice-President with un-scripted questions from the general populace.
Roguish Lawyer
06-18-2005, 11:22
So, who's going to admit they scored lib? :munchin
aricbcool
06-18-2005, 13:32
So, who's going to admit they scored lib? :munchin
You need someone else to go first? :D
Believe it or not there is atleast ONE LIB in this group!! He doesn't post that often.
BMT
AIN"T ME RL
You are a solid Republican. You are not as fiercely ideological or uncompromising as others in the party, but nonetheless remain a reliable supporter. If you could have your way, you'd like to see Republican leaders take a slightly more pragmatic approach on certain issues - and dial down some of their nakedly partisan and bitterly divisive rhetoric.
That pretty well describes me. I am not a "Die hard" which means to me that you follow unthinkingly right or wrong. I like to think for my self and am not a member of the sheeple race. :lifter
So, who's going to admit they scored lib? :munchinJefferson was a liberal...so am i...probably not quite as capable a liberal as he was, but i am a liberal...a Jeffersonian liberal...
my profile is the same one Terry posted...not much of a ditto head...i refuse to relinquish my intellectual sovereignty to anyone...
Achilles
06-20-2005, 11:34
You are a devoted Republican. You tend to walk in lockstep with the party, even if you have not agreed with every decision Republican leaders have made. The few differences you have are nothing compared to your complete and utter disdain for the Democratic Party and the elitism, cowardice, and godlessness for which it stands.
Anyone know of a more relevant quiz that tests for ideology, rather than reaction to heavily partisan political cartoons/images?
So, who's going to admit they scored lib? :munchin
I scored Moderate, but I've got a bumper sticker that reads:
Pro-Military Progressive Humanist Gun Lover
Card Carrying Member of the ACLU
Unionist, Libertine and Patriot
Bibliophile
And I vote.
Does this count as a Lib? :D
aricbcool
06-20-2005, 19:46
Anyone know of a more relevant quiz that tests for ideology, rather than reaction to heavily partisan political cartoons/images?
Yeah, check this out: http://politicalcompass.org/
We find your score somewhat different from the rest of our study. You do not care what others think of you. You believe that the security of your country is first and foremost in your mind. You believe in individual rights but you think that most people have their heads up their asses trying to push their beliefs on you. You want to be left alone and only socialize with a distinct group of people.
Thanks for participating.
Sacamuelas
06-20-2005, 20:37
LOL :lifter classic Doc
I find that I feel physically ill most of the time I read/watch/listen to the news. But like a man watching a camp fire, I just can't stop.
Just about everything the Dems do pisses me off, and the personalities leading that party are so transparent and petty. The Republicans piss me off because they don't do enough. Imagine being the POTUS and having the Senate and House allied with you. The things I could do.... Yet Bush drags his feet on the border, the party eagerly ushers in CAFTA, sings the praises of NAFTA, doesnt build more refineries, panders to the press in Iraq, helps companies take away Bankruptcy protection from blue collar types, while doing nothing as Corporations get rid of their pensioners through bankruptcy ensuring that the taxpayers will pay the retirement (albeit not the total amount owed to the pensioners).
They say there are 12 million illegals in our country. The cost to move them is so great that it is unaffordable, its also said that if we were to round them all up the economy would suffer. I heard people saying 'its nice rhetoric to say we should deport them all, but how would you pay for it?"
I would pay for it through the sale of everything the illegals owned, the sale of EVERYTHING any business and/or business owner owned that employed or housed illegals. And I mean everything, right down to his kids toys. I tend to agree with much (not all or even most) of what Michael Savage says. So, whatever that makes me I guess I am.
I think people (esp. in the press, ACLU, AI, etc.) should be tried for treason, that our rights come from God, not from any man or Gov't, that people who want to exercise their first amendment rights wish to - only so they can restrict or abolish my 2nd Amendment rights.
I see municipal governments using the justice system as a means of revenue. I see people getting all the justice they can afford. You are arrested, arraigned, if you have money you fight, if you don't you plead. When you plead you enter some kind of program that costs money for which the municipality gets a kick back. I see cops who retire with ridiculous pensions while BTDT CSM's get castrated by concurrent receipt, and drive taxi's around post.
Ever spend a sunny day in San Francisco, just people watching, and think, for these people I left my family for how long, protecting THESE people? Is it true that there are more service people under charges than are combatants held at Gitmo?
I'm not trying to fit into anyone's mold, but I do know what's right and wrong, and what I see. :mad:
Kahuku Saint
07-02-2005, 03:30
You are a solid Democrat. You are not as fiercely ideological or uncompromising as others in the party, but nonetheless remain a reliable supporter. If you could have your way, you'd like to see Democrats leaders take a slightly more accommodating approach on certain issues – and dial down some of their nakedly partisan and bitterly divisive rhetoric.
You asked for volunteers.
:munchin
You asked for volunteers.yup...and i will give you no grief for your political views...no matter how wrong-headed they may be... ;)
Search
Political Humor
Your Political Profile
You are a moderate Republican. You agree with Republicans more often than not, but have misgivings about some of their hard-line positions, as well as the direction they are leading the country. You remain supportive for now, but if Republicans keep lurching to the right and taking their cues from religious fanatics and belligerent neocons, you may decide to jump ship.
That about sums me up, though there's no where really to jump :eek:
Kyobanim
07-02-2005, 17:24
This is interesting . . .
I think people (esp. in the press, ACLU, AI, etc.) should be tried for treason, that our rights come from God, not from any man or Gov't, that people who want to exercise their first amendment rights wish to - only so they can restrict or abolish my 2nd Amendment rights.
The first statement says our rights come from god, not from a man or governement so I guess that means that you don't believe the Constitution, which was written by men is correct. Yet you turn around and say you believe in the 2d amendant which was written by men.
I guess since you only believe that 1 amendment is any good then the rest should be thrown out. Now I understand why the press, aclu and others should be tried for treason.
Why don't we just throw away the last 200+ years of freedom and appoint a king?
Keep the costs down and come back to the dark side.
Kahuku Saint
07-04-2005, 00:42
yup...and i will give you no grief for your political views...no matter how wrong-headed they may be... ;)
I'd feel ill-equiped at defending myself; give me a couple more years at study, and then feel free to jump down my throat. :D Of course, coming from a long line of sailors, soldiers and airmen - one Nobel Prize Winner too! - I get enough grief as is...
Ohhhhhhhhh Lord....... Gotta leave this thread alone.
So, who's going to admit they scored lib? :munchin
I have no problem with saying I'm a Lib according to that test. I think it speaks more to my sense of humor than my politics though. Although, I will readily admit to disagreeing with many of the social policies I've seen lately. And, as far as I am concerned Michael Moore is an annoying fat fuck who seems to be getting fatter by the day as well as more annoying. Boy needs a PT program.
You are a moderate Democrat. You agree with Democrats more often than not, but have misgivings about some of their positions on key social issues, as well as their ability to defend the country. You remain supportive for now, but if Democrats keep moving to the left and taking their cues from people like Michael Moore, you may decide to jump ship.
You are a pure, unabashed, die-hard Republican loyalist. You remain fiercely dedicated to fighting the twin evils of terrorism and liberalism, and you'd walk across a field of land mines if it meant casting a deciding vote for a Republican president. In your view, there is no higher form of patriotism than defending America against the Democratic Party and every elitist, French-loving, religion-mocking, America-hating, terrorist-appeasing ideal for which it stands.
Works for me.
Kyobanim,
I don't say our rights come from God. The Declaration of Independence does. I believe this to be true.
With regard to references I made toward the Bill of Rights, allow me to clarify my remarks. I find it reprehensable that a person who will shout from the roof tops his right to smear excrement and burn the flag, will in the same breath say that I should not be allowed to bear firearms.
I do believe everything I said about trials for treason. That law is on the books for a reason. There are elements to the crime of treason, that a legal person should be able to articulate. If the actions of certain NGO's, Reporters, Arbiters, Corporations, etc., do violate the elements of the crime - they should be tried by a jury of their peers. If the Government proves its case, well aren't we a nation of laws? Or perhaps we are a nation that chooses which laws are enforced, and who is subject to those laws?
If there is a limit as to which type of weapons, and in which places I may bear firearms, similarly there must be limits to the type, time, and place of 'speech.'
If I choose to carry a loaded firearm at an inappropriate place and time, I would expect to be prosecuted, no? Consequently, if in time of War for the very survival of our Nation one makes comments or acts inapporpriately, they must expect to be held accountable. As a citizen, I expect my Nation to look after my peers, our sons and daughters in uniform. When reckless and untruthful accusations with malice aforethought are leveled at our military personnel, those 'enlightend' accusers must be held accountable.
Our Government selectively enforces the laws which protect the soveriegnty of our people or our states by allowing illegals to enter the United States as they please. I would submit to you that at the very least, those Administrators are derelict in the performance of their duties. Where is the accountability?
Freedom is the natural state of man, as provided by God. Laws are to preserve the good order of our nation.
Kyobanim
07-07-2005, 13:32
Shooter - This is another topic. I will be happy to converse on this subject if you'd like to move it to another topic.
Ghostrider
07-07-2005, 13:41
"You are a devoted Republican. You tend to walk in lockstep with the party, even if you have not agreed with every decision Republican leaders have made. The few differences you have are nothing compared to your complete and utter disdain for the Democratic Party and the elitism, cowardice, and godlessness for which it stands."
I don't know about "lockstep"...that indicates alot of walking and DAT's don't walk. :p
From the "political compass test"
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Almost the exact middle of the graph...interesting.
Kyobanim,
Would love to kick around ideas with you.
I don't know about "lockstep"...that indicates alot of walking and DAT's don't walk.
But when you do, its in lockstep with the guy holding the GPS, as everyone knows tankers can't navigate worth a damn. :p
Ghostrider
07-07-2005, 20:37
But when you do, its in lockstep with the guy holding the GPS, as everyone knows tankers can't navigate worth a damn. :p
:D But I've got my own GPS AND know how to use it....and even more remarkable I still know how to use a compass, map , and protracter. :p
"You are a solid Republican. You are not as fiercely ideological or uncompromising as others in the party, but nonetheless remain a reliable supporter. If you could have your way, you'd like to see Republican leaders take a slightly more pragmatic approach on certain issues - and dial down some of their nakedly partisan and bitterly divisive rhetoric."
But I've got my own GPS AND know how to use it....and even more remarkable I still know how to use a compass, map , and protracter. mounted or afoot????????? :munchin
Ghostrider
07-08-2005, 09:52
mounted or afoot????????? :munchin
ROFL, Why BOTH! :D ...although GPS is much easier to use mounted (something about metal on vehicles messing up the compass reading... :p )