Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 58 of 58

Thread: Find Out Where You Fit In The Political Spectrum

  1. #41
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,311
    Me...

    Libertarians
    9% of the public

    [U]What They Believe[/U]
    •Economically very conservative but moderate to liberal on social issues (Agree)
    •Highly critical of government (Agree)
    •Strongly pro-business (Agree)
    •Accepting of homosexuality (Agree)
    •Less religious than the average American (Agree)
    •Moderate views about immigrants compared to other GOP-oriented groups (This is one of the biggest issues with this test. I think legal imigrants are great and help this country. Illegals are a drain on our resources and are starting out on the wrong foot.).

    [U]Who They Are[/U]
    •Strong Republican-orientation, though a majority identify as independents (Agree, but "Republicans" have become so weak fiscally that I question what a Republican is these days.)
    •Affluent: 39% have incomes of $75,000 or more (Yes)
    •Two-thirds are male (Yes)
    •85% are non-Hispanic whites (Yes)
    •About seven-in-ten (71%) have attended college (Yes)
    •About half as likely as the two strongest GOP groups to attend church weekly (I don't)
    •56% use social networking sites (Yes)
    •36% trade stocks (Yes)


    So I guess their definition fits me pretty well though I agree with all of you the black/white nature of the questions is not good and the imigration questions lumping legals with illegals annoyed me.

  2. #42
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;4022570]

    [B][U]STAUNCH CONSERVATIVE[/U][/B] along with 9% of the public.

    That is the highest level on the conservative side of the scale.[/QUOTE]

    Same for me......

  3. #43
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;4023059]You might be surprised, at least half of my list will consist of so-called Republicans (AKA RINO's)

    I'm not even gonna count rabble-rousers and race hustlers who never served in any real capacity.

    [B][U]IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER[/U][/B]

    [LIST=1][*]Mike Bloomberg[*]Nelson Rockefeller[*]John Lindsay[*]Lowell Weicker[*]John Dean [*]Ted Kennedy[*]Bill Clinton[*]Mario Cuomo[*]Anthony Weiner[*]Charles Schumer[/LIST]
    The last two I got lazy, so I went with a couple of NY lefties who piss me off because they try to masquerade as moderates. I hate that. I have more respect for principled liberals who say "I'm a liberal" and don't try to fool people.

    Also its only natural for me to have stronger feelings about NY pols which makes up more than half of my list.[/QUOTE]

    Weiner doesn't masquerade as a moderate...

  4. #44

  5. #45
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4022860]My Result:

    Libertarians
    9% of the public

    [U]What They Believe[/U]
    •Economically very conservative but moderate to liberal on social issues (Agree)(ditto)
    •Highly critical of government (Agree)(ditto)
    •Strongly pro-business (Agree)(ditto)
    •Accepting of homosexuality (Agree)(ditto)
    •Less religious than the average American (Agree)(unsure - I really do not know how religious the average american is)
    •Moderate views about immigrants compared to other GOP-oriented groups (Unsure, Agree for LEGAL Immigrants and changing Policy,stringlydisagree on ILLEGAL Aliens). (Agree)

    [U]Who They Are[/U]
    •Strong Republican-orientation, though a majority identify as independents (I self-identify as a Libertarian Conservative)(Agree)
    •Affluent: 39% have incomes of $75,000 or more (I do not)(I do)
    •Two-thirds are male (I am)(ditto)
    •85% are non-Hispanic whites (I am)(ditto)
    •About seven-in-ten (71%) have attended college (I have)(ditto)
    •About half as likely as the two strongest GOP groups to attend church weekly (I do not)(I do)
    •56% use social networking sites (I do not)(ditto)
    •36% trade stocks (I do not)(ditto)[/QUOTE]

    Me too. Honestly, I think a majority of american's are libertarian and either don't know it, or believe the label to be undesirable. The media seems to like to paint Libertarian's as less than normal. Ron Paul has been portrayed as a fringe element, but based on the accuracy of his predictions, I'd say he is one of the few members of congress who has a clear understanding of how government afffects society.

  6. #46
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4024071]Me too. Honestly, I think a majority of american's are libertarian and either don't know it, or believe the label to be undesirable. The media seems to like to paint Libertarian's as less than normal. Ron Paul has been portrayed as a fringe element, but based on the accuracy of his predictions, I'd say he is one of the few members of congress who has a clear understanding of how government afffects society.[/QUOTE]

    the libertarian party doesn't understand the role of Charisma in politics. Ron Paul is a great dude but he looks like someone's creepy old grandpa.

    it's a pretty sound platform in theory but in practice their ideas can be obtuse and their candidates are terrible

    for example privatization of public services sounds good... but if everyone on the street hires their own sanitation company how do 50 garbage trucks get up and down the street?

    I have a fairly low opinion of the human condition. People cannot be trusted to make smart decisions that are in the best interest [b]of the common good[/b]. Neither can corporations.

    everyone bashes the gov't but it's fantastic compared to every other government. and it beats the sh|t out of anarchy.

    we can call it the nanny state but believe it or not it's more efficient to pay for the indigent up front than to have them clogging the emergency room. the state of minnesota has a place where boozehounds can live and drink. scraping these people off the sidewalks and saving their lives every week is too expensive. sometimes a nanny helps.

    the libertarians and right wing has this idea that people are demanding the gov't to stop taking care of them... the polls show the exact opposite.
    Last edited by bitonti; 05-08-2011 at 12:06 PM.

  7. #47
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4024081].... the libertarians and right wing has this idea that people are demanding the gov't to stop taking care of them... the polls show the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]

    I think the salient point is that there is a segment of society that, if given the choice, would elect to have people like you and I, through taxes and the like, supply the money needed for their government "support" rather than work for themself. Able bodied men and women should "work" to earn their keep. Whatever happened to "workfare" anyway?

    My problem is government tries to do too much. It is just as wrong to subsidize an able bodied person as it is a coproration or farmer. I want my government to concentrate on the essentials. I'm not saying remove the safety net, just don't let able bodied people "live" in the safety net. Then, we could hopefully have the money necessary to provide government funded healthcare for the disabled and poor. That would be a far more important function than all the other wasteful crap the government does.

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,538
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;4022778][COLOR=red] [COLOR=black]The Primaries are a different story, thats where you can afford to be more of a rigid ideologue, this refers more to the general election and moreso for a political independent such as yourself[/COLOR].[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

    You are forgettting about open primaries which end up diluting/polluting
    the field - IMO they should all be closed

  9. #49
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4024081]

    we can call it the nanny state but believe it or not it's more efficient to pay for the indigent up front than to have them clogging the emergency room. the state of minnesota has a place where boozehounds can live and drink. scraping these people off the sidewalks and saving their lives every week is too expensive. sometimes a nanny helps.

    the libertarians and right wing has this idea that people are demanding the gov't to stop taking care of them... the polls show the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]


    I need to correct this statement. Right wingers don't think that people are demanding the govt stop caring for them. We feel that the nanny state is a CAUSE of many hardships. Government handouts are akin to societal heroine. The US was founded by people that wanted a country where they could rise and fall based on their talents and abilities. Look no further than our Native American populations for the evidence of what living off the government does to a people.

    0ver 60% of the NA population is unemployed and living under the poverty line. NA's living on reserves get given a house that they don't own that sits on land that belongs to the reservation. Those houses are dilapidated because the people living there don't actually own the house they live in. They dont work the land because it can and does get taken away at the whim of the reservation. Would you spen money on costly improvements to a house and land you dont own? They also get a govt stipend that gives them just enough cash to sit around all day and drink beers, put some food on the table and possibly buy a cheap car. If they get a job that stipend can be taken away and given to someone else. [B]The government gives them incentives not to work or become productive members of society! [/B]

    Now take that example which is not opinion but rather truth as evidenced by the facts and expand it to society as a whole. Conservatives see this and believe that the best way to help people is to motivate them to better themselves. Give people incentive to get off wellfare not to stay on it. They believe that the nanny state is a cause of societal problems not a cure. Of course there are always exceptions. The elderly or disabled for example should be cared for in a modern society. Children should be given assistance if their parents can not care for them. No child should go hungry.

    A liberal has a very different view of these issues. They generally believe that the poor are that way because they don't have the talent or abilities to succeed in life. Liberals generally think that the government is here to give to anyone in need regardless of those peoples ability to do for themselves. I actually think most average libs genuinely think they are helping those that their policies actually serve to keep down. There is a political class of lefties that knows that drug of govt dependence serves the more sinister purpose of keeping them in power. They know that once the balance of power shifts to the point where close to half or more of the people in the country are dependent on their handouts then it will be impossible for the right to elect representation that could change these policies. The heart of their pholosophy is based on their arrogant believe that the poor are that way because they simply dont have the talent or ability to pull themselves up.

  10. #50
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4022707]You mean [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only"]RINO'[/URL]S

    Like this guy.

    [IMG]http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/michael_bloomberg.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    I'm a registered republican who graded out Libertarian.
    Don't mistake republicans for right wing ideologues. Part of the problem with this country today is polarization. Party labels have gotten so perverted. Go back to 1960, listen to a debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. By today's standards it would be hard to tell who the republican and who the democrat was.

  11. #51
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4025699]Look no further than our Native American populations for the evidence of what [b]getting systematically murdered by[/b] the government does to a people. [/QUOTE]

    fixed.

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=JetsFanatic;4025795]I'm a registered republican who graded out Libertarian.
    Don't mistake republicans for right wing ideologues. Part of the problem with this country today is polarization. Party labels have gotten so perverted. Go back to 1960, listen to a debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. By today's standards it would be hard to tell who the republican and who the democrat was.[/QUOTE]

    You're correct. I mentioned in another thread that it's worthwhile to go back and read the party presidential platforms over the century to get a sense of the ebb and flow of ideology. But if you step forward to the Goldwater platform of 1964, I think you'll see the beginnings of a massive shift from moderation that Reagan picked up (in part) in 1980.

  13. #53
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4025985]fixed.[/QUOTE]

    Nice dodge. Are you saying that our govt is currently systematically murdering NA's? Its just so confusing:rolleyes::rolleyes:. No one deny's that what happened to the NA population over 100 years ago is shameful and wrong. That and slavery are the two biggest and most shameful pieces to the otherwise great history of this country. The question is not about what happened 100+ years ago it is about how to help people TODAY.

    See the link below.

    [url]http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/government-creates-poverty.html[/url]

  14. #54
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4026017] The question is not about what happened 100+ years ago it is about how to help people TODAY.
    [/QUOTE]

    there is a connection between the events of the past and the conditions of today. The Native population cannot be expected to just "sack up" and join the working world... and be happy and thankful for their luck in all this gov't help.

    we talk about free houses and why they aren't keeping them up... maybe they don't want houses. we give them money. maybe they don't want money. What they want, the gov't can't give them. (Pride, dignity, restoration of the past)

    the suicide and alcoholism rates are sky high in these populations... what we are seeing is a people in mourning for genocide. Yes... Still.

    I don't think you, I or John Stossel can tell them enough is enough. they might survive they might not but it's not as simple as 'gov't aid creates poverty' the poverty and hardship was created a long time ago.
    Last edited by bitonti; 05-11-2011 at 11:18 AM.

  15. #55
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4026031]there is a connection between the events of the past and the conditions of today. The Native population cannot be expected to just "sack up" and join the working world... and be happy and thankful for their luck in all this gov't help.

    we talk about free houses and why they aren't keeping them up... maybe they don't want houses. we give them money. maybe they don't want money. What they want, the gov't can't give them. (Pride, dignity, restoration of the past)

    the suicide and alcoholism rates are sky high in these populations... what we are seeing is a people in mourning for genocide. Yes... Still.

    I don't think you, I or John Stossel can tell them enough is enough. they might survive they might not but it's not as simple as 'gov't aid creates poverty' the poverty and hardship was created a long time ago.[/QUOTE]

    Ho then do you explain the successes of the Lumbee NA's? Are they simply not in mourning like some of the other NA tribes? Is it that their DNA is different? Or maybe the reason the other NA tribes don't have their dignity is because of gov't interference that makes them feel dependent. Maybe if the GOVT didnt subsidize them to the point where they are completely dependent then they could prosper and get their dignity back.

    I know you have never met a govt handout that you didnt like. And the thought of these handouts having harmful effects goes against your DNA but I would wonder if you could acknowledge the possibility however small that this may be a major factor in keeping these populations impoverished???

  16. #56
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,999
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4026297]Ho then do you explain the successes of the Lumbee NA's? [/QUOTE]

    I can only think of one...

    [IMG]http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID22248/images/41.jpg[/IMG]

    :eek:

  17. #57
    we as a nation fought 2 wars over 10 years on credit and at the same time, cut the taxes. and then the economy fell.

    medicare and social security don't discriminate whether the person is Native, White, Black, Latino or "Other"

    military, healthcare and welfare that's 60% of the budget more or less

    My hope is we should also be probably talking about cutting alot of other things, before we cut deeply into benefits. there is fat to be cut everywhere.

    taxes will be raised. reagan did it 4 times in the 80s and everyone loved the 80's.

    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4026297]
    I know you have never met a govt handout that you didnt like. [/QUOTE]

    the great society isn't gonna happen. I agree that vision that FDR and LBJ put forth were unrealistic.

    but from a pure cost benefit analysis, it's better for the gov't to take care of "undeserving poor" people up front than wait for them to show up to the emergency room.

    Welfare is 20% of the budget and it would be great to get that down to 15% i agree. It's not the problem with America or even close to it. the credit rating is not going to be cut because of welfare. every 1st world nation has welfare.

  18. #58
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4026349]we as a nation fought 2 wars over 10 years on credit and at the same time, cut the taxes. and then the economy fell.

    medicare and social security don't discriminate whether the person is Native, White, Black, Latino or "Other"

    military, healthcare and welfare that's 60% of the budget more or less

    My hope is we should also be probably talking about cutting alot of other things, before we cut deeply into benefits. there is fat to be cut everywhere.

    taxes will be raised. reagan did it 4 times in the 80s and everyone loved the 80's.



    the great society isn't gonna happen. I agree that vision that FDR and LBJ put forth were unrealistic.

    but from a pure cost benefit analysis, it's better for the gov't to take care of "undeserving poor" people up front than wait for them to show up to the emergency room.

    Welfare is 20% of the budget and it would be great to get that down to 15% i agree. It's not the problem with America or even close to it. the credit rating is not going to be cut because of welfare. every 1st world nation has welfare.[/QUOTE]

    You are sounding like a Rethuglican in some of these points. We need across the board trimming of the GOVT fat. Then we need to address the issues with Social Security through raising the starting ages a bit to reflect current life expectancies. We can fix Medicare through privatization and vouchers along with a means test to shift funds from the wealthy that don't need it to the poorest among us.

    We could have helped the issue of skyrocketing medical insurance costs by allowing insurance companies to offer services across state lines and allowing small business to combine through local chambers of commerce or other organizations and purchase plans with much larger group sizes.

    Many of our problems are caused by GOVT interference and regulations.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us