Your Political Compass

[Da_Latios]

Economic Left/Right: 0.12

 

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28

 

 

 

And I'm too lazy to add the graph.

 

And I'm too lazy to add you to the TIF compass.

 

And I'm too lazy to care.

 

I lol'd.

[Robert_de_Sable]

You don't say. :roll:

 

That's entirely fine with me.

 

Can we please stay on topic?

 

For the poster who commented that they didn't understand five of the questions, those were most likely economic ones, correct? There are a lot of people who don't completely grasp economics (including me) but those are fairly basic questions. I'll put up a mini-guide to some of the more complicated questions.

[halo2_rocks7]

Economic Left/Right: -2.88

 

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.10

 

 

 

[megakiller32]

Funny how most of us are left wing.

 

I wonder why....

[indy500fan]

I made a post a clicked submit but it's not here, and I don't feel like writing it all out again. To sum it up, this is like my fifth time taking this test since this topic gets posted semi-annually starting about 7 years ago. It gave me around Economic 8 Social -6. I should be around Economic 9.5 Social -9.5 but the questions were horrible. I complain about the questions every time and for good reason, many of those don't have an answer of agree or disagree. There was one that stood out this time on the fourth page, I didn't remember it because the last 5 times this has been posted I only made it to the second or third question before giving up. Anyways it wasn't a question, it was a statement of fact and then gives you the response agree or disagree. Of course you are going to agree with a fact, but the way they figure that question into their formula is the authoritarian response, so you either have to agree with the fact or disagree and get your correct result.

[das1330]

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

I like my capitalism and freedom.

 

You have one of Mao Zedong's most famous quotes in your signature. You are aware he is your political opposite?

 

 

 

I have Mao in my signature because he managed to take over and rule over one billion people with an iron fist, killing tens of millions and still being adored by the people of China. He is in my signature because of his status as a tyrant, revolutionary and dictator, not because of his political beliefs.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Adolph Hitler did the same thing. You have an insane, evil man in your signature who was not, in fact, beloved by the Chinese. He was hated for his anti "bourgeois capitalism" beliefs and his "Great Leap Forward" and his "Cultural Revolution".

[ThurinEthir]

Adolph Hitler did the same thing. You have an insane, evil man in your signature who was not, in fact, beloved by the Chinese. He was hated for his anti "bourgeois capitalism" beliefs and his "Great Leap Forward" and his "Cultural Revolution".

 

Well, apparently you aren't Chinese.

 

Many Chinese people actually do adore him, but I'd say that's more because of lack of experience, as they haven't experienced anything else.

[Robert_de_Sable]

I apologize. You are correct, and I retract my previous statement. However, the fact that he was beloved is utterly absurd. The man was a psychopath killer.

[Laura]

I apologize. You are correct, and I retract my previous statement. However, the fact that he was beloved is utterly absurd. The man was a psychopath killer.

So you can't adore him for certain aspects? For example, Hitler was a great leader. Depending on your stance, his actions might have been perceived as acceptable as well. Saying that they can't be adored because they killed people is, in my opinion, absurd.

[Robert_de_Sable]

No, Hitler was a genius tactician. There's a difference between being that and a great leader. Ukraine offered its support during Hitler's war with Russia. Had Hitler accepted their offer of help, the combined forces of the German and Ukrainian armies would have eventually forced their way into Moscow and captured Russia. However, Hitler, blinded as he was by his belief in A R Y A N (I can't type it properly, apparently it's a scam site) superiority, turned down the offer and had the Ukrainians sent to concentration camps. Had he not done this, it is almost certain that Russia would have fallen to the German assault, and that would certainly have turned the tide of the war. You certainly can adore him for certain aspects, but beloved most certainly is the wrong word.

[Lenin64]

No, Hitler was a genius tactician. There's a difference between being that and a great leader. Ukraine offered its support during Hitler's war with Russia. Had Hitler accepted their offer of help, the combined forces of the German and Ukrainian armies would have eventually forced their way into Moscow and captured Russia. However, Hitler, blinded as he was by his belief in A R Y A N (I can't type it properly, apparently it's a scam site) superiority, turned down the offer and had the Ukrainians sent to concentration camps. Had he not done this, it is almost certain that Russia would have fallen to the German assault, and that would certainly have turned the tide of the war. You certainly can adore him for certain aspects, but beloved most certainly is the wrong word.

 

That wouldn't have turned the tide of the war. It would have kept the war going in the same direction as it was at the time.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Can you please clarify what you mean by that? At the time, Hitler's armies were spread far too thin over western Europe, Britain, and Russia to take any of those areas. Had he been able to take Russia, it's almost certain he would have been victorious. God forbid.

[Riku3220]

Can you please clarify what you mean by that? At the time, Hitler's armies were spread far too thin over western Europe, Britain, and Russia to take any of those areas. Had he been able to take Russia, it's almost certain he would have been victorious. God forbid.

 

It wouldn't change the tide because the Russians repelling the German forces and advanceing into Germany was the turn of the tide. If Germany accepted Ukraines help the tide would've kept going.

[magekillr]

Taken it before, several times:

 

 

 

Economic Left/Right: -8.88

 

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

 

I am not going to get along with you. #-o

 

 

 

Why? Because you want to control people's lives, spy on them, condemn homosexuality as immoral based on nothing but prejudice, bomb other peoples' countries while ignoring state sovereignty in the name of "freedom" and indirectly contribute to crime and poverty by saying, "You're on your own?" You're a fascist, no one should get along with you.

 

 

 

Spoken like a true liberal, god you people are funny sometimes. The hypocrisy is astounding. Don't give me that crap about controlling. You want to control what we drive, what bulbs we use, what toilet paper we should use, what food we should eat, how much we should pay people, tax rates, talk radio content... the list goes on. All in the name of whatever the hell you believe in.

 

 

 

1.) What you drive and what bulbs you use is directly causing the demise of our society. Go ahead and denounce global warming as a hoax to steal your tax dollars and "control your lives," but the smart people and the scientists will continue on with what we call "facts," "data," and "trends."

 

 

 

2.) If you feel controlled through taxes, then maybe you should reduce your party's spending? You know you would never do that, because you'd lose your favorite talking point: "Our children are going to inherit this deficit that you liberals are handing them!" You know, even though Bush killed the economy, and drove the debt you like to complain about sky high, it just doesn't matter; facts, evidence, data..it's all a liberal conspiracy to control your life.

 

 

 

3.) The Fairness Doctrine is a piece of garbage, and it is not going to be brought back. Don't worry too much, I'm sure you'll fret when we take away your AK-47's.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Can you please clarify what you mean by that? At the time, Hitler's armies were spread far too thin over western Europe, Britain, and Russia to take any of those areas. Had he been able to take Russia, it's almost certain he would have been victorious. God forbid.

 

It wouldn't change the tide because the Russians repelling the German forces and advanceing into Germany was the turn of the tide. If Russia accepted Ukraines help the tide would've kept going.

 

If ignorance is bliss, you must be in a constant state of orgasm.

 

To the above poster: I never meant to start anything. I wasn't even being serious. Don't take other people so bloody seriously. However, I'm seriously insulted that you would call me a fascist. You're pretty close to being a communist yourself, so watch how you throw words like that around.

[Riku3220]

Can you please clarify what you mean by that? At the time, Hitler's armies were spread far too thin over western Europe, Britain, and Russia to take any of those areas. Had he been able to take Russia, it's almost certain he would have been victorious. God forbid.

 

It wouldn't change the tide because the Russians repelling the German forces and advanceing into Germany was the turn of the tide. If Russia accepted Ukraines help the tide would've kept going.

 

If ignorance is bliss, you must be in a constant state of orgasm.

 

To the above poster: I never meant to start anything. I wasn't even being serious. Don't take other people so bloody seriously. However, I'm seriously insulted that you would call me a fascist. You're pretty close to being a communist yourself, so watch how you throw words like that around.

 

Sorry That was a typo. I meant if Germany had accepted Ukraines help the war would've kept going without the Russians repelling. My bad.

[Robert_de_Sable]

In any case you're still wrong. Either that or you're seriously misunderstanding something. My situation is purely hypothetical: Hitler accepts the assistance of the Ukrainian forces and succeeds in forcing Russia to yield. Therefore the tide would not have "kept going" as you said.

[Riku3220]

In any case you're still wrong. Either that or you're seriously misunderstanding something. My situation is purely hypothetical: Hitler accepts the assistance of the Ukrainian forces and succeeds in forcing Russia to yield. Therefore the tide would not have "kept going" as you said.

 

Yes... it would, the tide turning was the Russians coming back to kick some [wagon]. If Germany accepted help the tide wouldn't have turned.

 

 

 

We're arguing over what we both believe now! :wall:

[Robert_de_Sable]

It wouldn't change the tide because the Russians repelling the German forces and advanceing into Germany was the turn of the tide. If Germany accepted Ukraines help the tide would've kept going.

 

Read your original post again. This makes no sense.

 

You're telling me that Germany accepting Ukraine's help would not have changed the war, because Germany didn't accept Ukraine's help and thus did not change the war.

 

Please, can you try to understand before one of us dies?

[Riku3220]

It wouldn't change the tide because the Russians repelling the German forces and advanceing into Germany was the turn of the tide. If Germany accepted Ukraines help the tide would've kept going.

 

Read your original post again. This makes no sense.

 

You're telling me that Germany accepting Ukraine's help would not have changed the war, because Germany didn't accept Ukraine's help and thus did not change the war.

 

Please, can you try to understand before one of us dies?

 

:wall:

 

 

 

You're still not understanding that the Russians making their comeback was what changed the war, but whatever, I'm done trying to convince you.

[aspokaspofkjsopfkapo]

 

capitalism and freedom for the win! :thumbup:

[champion]

If ignorance is bliss, you must be in a constant state of orgasm.

 

Well that's not a very good way to start off a political debate.

[Robert_de_Sable]

No, but this is what you are saying:

 

If Germany had accepted the Ukrainian assistance, it would not have made a difference. My reasoning behind this is that the Russians managed to repel the Germans, who did not accept Ukraine's assistance.

 

All I'm trying to tell you is that had Germany accepted Ukraine's assistance, they would have, for lack of a better word, captured Russia. Your response to this is that no, they wouldn't have, since they didn't. Please just understand the reasoning behind this.

 

If ignorance is bliss, you must be in a constant state of orgasm.

 

Well that's not a very good way to start off a political debate.

 

I'd like to think of it as creative debating. 8-)

[Riku3220]

I'd like to say that that was nowhere near what I said. I'm saying that Russia coming back was the change of the tide. If Germany accepted Ukraines help they would've been able to continue into Russia and capture it, thus not changing the tide.