Saturday, September 24th 2005
Political Test
This isn’t a Xanga or LiveJournal, so you’ll never catch me posting the results of quizzes like “Which Alcoholic Drink Are You” or “What type of underwear would you be?” We’re not going to sink that low… yet. But here’s a political test that CalJunket linked to. My results are below. How did you do?
| You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an… Economic Conservative (93% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
The Political Quiz
Here is one of those “tests” that tell you what kind of Political direction you lean… Here is what this thing says about me, The Modern Guy: (Via Centerfield) You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an… Economic Moderate…
Trackback by The Modern Guy — 9/24/2005 @ 10:45 pm
I’d be surprised if this thing wouldn’t list George W. Bush as a liberal …
Comment by Fresh Prince — 9/24/2005 @ 11:52 pm
got any other surprises for us, patrick?
Comment by g — 9/25/2005 @ 6:04 am
So that’s why you support Bush so much! Quickest way to anarchy.
Comment by HB — 9/25/2005 @ 11:19 am
What’d you get HB?
Comment by patr — 9/25/2005 @ 11:52 am
I got 33% socially permissive. 66% economically permissive.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 9/25/2005 @ 12:10 pm
Social Conservative: 30% Permissive
Economic Liberal: 10% Permissive
(Around that wedge where Totalitarian, Socialist and Democrat meet)
Comment by HB — 9/25/2005 @ 1:20 pm
43% Socially Permissive
38% Economically Permissive
Comment by cdensing — 9/25/2005 @ 6:10 pm
Social Liberal (78% permissive)
Economic Liberal (18% permissive)
You are best described as a: Socialist
Not suprising.
Comment by Donald — 9/25/2005 @ 7:58 pm
“Around that wedge where Totalitarian, Socialist and Democrat meet”
Heh, you say that like it’s something to be proud of. I always knew you were my foil, you are my exact polar opposite according to the chart.
Comment by patr — 9/25/2005 @ 10:57 pm
Right on the edge of Capitalist and Libertarian. 61% socially permissive, 76% economically permissive.
Comment by jfullmer — 9/26/2005 @ 12:23 am
While this is a better test than others I’ve seen, it has several major problems with how they ask their questions. Two questions in particular get my attention.
1. Abortion was just for or against. Most Americans think that abortion should be illegal in some circumstances and illegal in others, and are not simply in favour of abortion being legal or illegal.
2. “If countries like France are unwilling to cooperate with our military plans, we should treat them as enemies.”
Failing to help with military plans is simply being neutral. No one has accused Switzerland (at least that I know of) of being an enemy to the United States. However, France could easily be considered an enemy for: selling weapons to enemies of the United States, stabbing America in the back at the United Nations, and threatening countries if they help the United States. Lastly, the actual question asked is how we should treat France, not even whether it actually is an enemy.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 9/26/2005 @ 11:07 am
Typical MCM
1) The last part of the test was not to determine your place on the spectrum, only for trivia purposes to see who voted for what candidate and such…look closer. Attention to detail does not seem to be your strongest characteristic.
2) Selling weapons to the enemies of the United States? Like when we sold weapons to Saddam or Iran in the 80’s. Regardless, America was not stabbed in the back at the UN, the war was based on outright lies (even Colin Powell is embarrassed that he had to over there and institute the circus), so I don’t see why they should have supported us (er… Bush). In fact, the French meant well for all. US would be better off and the Iraqi people would be better off. Maybe I’m not seeing something, but how is Bush’s plan to give the Mullahs control of 2/3 of Iraq with most of the Iraqi oil a worthwhile course of action. And don’t go on about how we had a spare 20,000 worthless soldiers and 300 billion dollars lying around doing nothing, that’s still not compelling enough to go to war.
So where did you land Michael
Comment by HB — 9/26/2005 @ 12:09 pm
1. It is still not a good question for the reasons I cited.
2. France sells weapons to countries, even though they know those weapons will be aimed at the United States. Iran in the 1980s was a foolish deal to secure the release of hostages. Iraq was given support by the United States in the mid 1980s, since at that time, Iran was an outright enemy of the United States and a threat to the entire region.
The French promised Powell that if Iraq did not comply with the resolution which stated serious consequences, then they would support a resolution calling for immediate military action. Instead, the French tried to publically humiliate Powell (by demanding documents and information on a completely different topic than the one they had agreed to meet on), and told Saddam that there was no way the United States would ever invade Iraq no matter what the United States publically stated. France also threatened various countries if they dared support the United States in either the UN or militarily.
The war was not based on outright lies since Iraq was not obeying UN resolutions, EVERY intelligence agency in the world and the UN itself believed that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam was giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda members (as well as several notorious terrorists from the 1980s). In Iraq, the precursors to make the WMDs were found as well as the scientists and facilities needed to make them. They also found missiles in Iraq whose ranges were far in excess of those allowed by UN resolutions.
The Shiite mullahs in Iraq do not run the country and in fact have seen enough of the mismanagement in neighboring Iran, that they have no desire to run Iraq. Iraq is now a functioning democracy, the dictator who terrorized and killed millions has been removed from power, and the living conditions have been improved drastically. Our involvement in Iraq has also lead to the end of Libya’s weapons programs (which were far more advanced than anyone thought), Syria ending its military occupation of Lebanon, and more political freedoms in Egypt.
If we had not gone into Iraq, Saddam would have continued bribing his way around sanctions and would have eventually rebuilt his WMD stockpiles. We would have then had to go into Iraq later or wait to respond to a WMD attack orchestrated by Saddam himself or terrorists he supported. There was no reason to wait to topple Saddam’s regime and watch the situation continue to detoriate in Iraq, especially since we probably wouldn’t know until it was too late.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 9/26/2005 @ 5:13 pm
HB, while that may be true about the “last part of the test”, neither of those questions was at the end. so, not sure what you’re referring to there.
youre right, the french meant “well for all”! that’s why they sold weapons to the iraqis (a claim that even you do not make an attempt to deny).
Comment by tmc — 9/26/2005 @ 5:17 pm
You’re obviously delusional Michael. I don’t even know where to start. How about this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts123.html
and this: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article9540.htm
TMC why did we sell WMD’s to the Iraqis (Saddam)? Why did we sell them during the times when people were gassed left and right in Iraq? Think there is a coincidence? (I know the rationale, but why the double standard?)
Comment by HB — 9/26/2005 @ 8:49 pm
The United States did not sell WMDs to Iraq and after it became apparent that Saddam had been gassing Kurds, United States relations with Iraq deteriorated.
Comment by Michael — 9/27/2005 @ 9:43 am
88 econ con
65 liberal con
i wondah how much da diffewence is btween “disagree strongly” and juss “disagree”. prob juss bess to say daT i am libertarian inclined.
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — 9/28/2005 @ 7:04 pm
36% Socially Permissive (Moderate Social Conservative)
86% Economically Permissive (Strong Fiscal Conservative)
Right on that edge of Capitalist and Republican.
Comment by TigerhawkVok — 10/5/2005 @ 12:51 pm