Your Political Compass

[Lenin64]

Hitler was kicking Russia's collectivised [wagon] until the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43. That was the turning point in the war. When the Ukrainians offered aid, as you say, it was before that time, when the Germans were still out of bubblegum. Therefore, the event that did change the course of the invasion would have ended in a german victory, thus causing no tide to change whatsoever.

[Riku3220]

Hitler was kicking Russia's collectivised [wagon] until the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43. That was the turning point in the war. When the Ukrainians offered aid, as you say, it was before that time, when the Germans were still out of bubblegum. Therefore, the event that did change the course of the invasion would have ended in a german victory, thus causing no tide to change whatsoever.

 

Thank you.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Hitler was kicking Russia's collectivised [wagon] until the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43. That was the turning point in the war. When the Ukrainians offered aid, as you say, it was before that time, when the Germans were still out of bubblegum. Therefore, the event that did change the course of the invasion would have ended in a german victory, thus causing no tide to change whatsoever.

 

The offer for help came during Stalingrad.

 

EDIT: I'm looking around the Internet for this now, and to this moment I am not able to figure out precisely when it was offered.

 

I definitely remember it being at some point during Stalingrad.

 

But oh [cabbage], we've taken up nearly a page with this. Back on topic.

[Faux]

I've done this at least 3x in these forums and I always forget. Oh well.

[Robert_de_Sable]

These arguments are obviously well and good, but it'd be great if people kept posting their compasses.

[Lenticular_J]

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.

 

You're right. Taking my lessons from the United States Senate, we should bash each other with our canes.

[indy500fan]

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.

 

You're right. Taking my lessons from the United States Senate, we should bash each other with our canes.

 

 

 

If you want to see some good politics check out what the South Korean congress did earlier this year: they were going to vote on a bill one day so one party got there first and barricaded themselves in the building so the opposing party couldn't get in and vote against/for the bill. There were stacks of chairs over all the entrances and a few firehouses spraying people with some politicians trying to climb in and being kicked out.

 

 

 

It was awesome.

[meol]

[hide=][/hide]Economic Left/Right: -7.25

 

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

 

 

 

He, these topics are always interesting. :

 

 

 

And I'm still wondering why RS-players tend to be socialists.

[fastortoise]

 

 

 

herro communism (right?)

[i_love_burritos]

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.

 

You're right. Taking my lessons from the United States Senate, we should bash each other with our canes.

 

 

 

 

 

I love you people.

 

 

 

Lets all just share the love.

[olenik2]

[Faitality]

[mmmcannibalism]

After some thought, I think this compass expresses an economic shift to the left

 

 

 

the questions such as the best for the corporation is best for everyone are being asked in a way that will lead centrists and right wingers to answer in a more leftist manner. As an example, I strongly diagree with the best for corporation is best for everyone, but I merely disagree that something good for a corporation is generally good for everyone.

 

 

 

any comments on my feeling here?

[magekillr]

After some thought, I think this compass expresses an economic shift to the left

 

 

 

the questions such as the best for the corporation is best for everyone are being asked in a way that will lead centrists and right wingers to answer in a more leftist manner. As an example, I strongly diagree with the best for corporation is best for everyone, but I merely disagree that something good for a corporation is generally good for everyone.

 

 

 

any comments on my feeling here?

 

 

 

I would respectfully disagree and say that it's more leaning towards libertarian. For example, its question about health care, "Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care ," it's highly disingenuous. Of course those with the ability to pay should have the right to "higher" standards of care, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with Universal Health Care.

 

 

 

This one as well, "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." Only a libertarian would word it like this.

[Robert_de_Sable]

After some thought, I think this compass expresses an economic shift to the left

 

 

 

the questions such as the best for the corporation is best for everyone are being asked in a way that will lead centrists and right wingers to answer in a more leftist manner. As an example, I strongly diagree with the best for corporation is best for everyone, but I merely disagree that something good for a corporation is generally good for everyone.

 

 

 

any comments on my feeling here?

 

 

 

I would respectfully disagree and say that it's more leaning towards libertarian. For example, its question about health care, "Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care ," it's highly disingenuous. Of course those with the ability to pay should have the right to "higher" standards of care, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with Universal Health Care.

 

 

 

This one as well, "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." Only a libertarian would word it like this.

 

Finally you said something I agree with!

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

After some thought, I think this compass expresses an economic shift to the left

 

 

 

the questions such as the best for the corporation is best for everyone are being asked in a way that will lead centrists and right wingers to answer in a more leftist manner. As an example, I strongly diagree with the best for corporation is best for everyone, but I merely disagree that something good for a corporation is generally good for everyone.

 

 

 

any comments on my feeling here?

 

 

 

I would respectfully disagree and say that it's more leaning towards libertarian. For example, its question about health care, "Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care ," it's highly disingenuous. Of course those with the ability to pay should have the right to "higher" standards of care, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with Universal Health Care.

 

 

 

This one as well, "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." Only a libertarian would word it like this.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Out of curiosity why do you disagree with the economic shift? Also, in what way are the health care and inflation questions libertarian favoring, Im sure it will make sense, I think im just missing something

 

 

 

On topic, anyone find it odd almost all of us are being listed economically left of Obama? For most americans Obama is pretty far left economically, and I know I am much farther right then him in economic sense.

[ShaqAttaq]

I guess I'm one of the few rational members of TIF

 

 

 

Economic Left/Right: 2.62

 

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00

 

 

 

 

 

FREEEEDOM

[Lenin64]

On topic, anyone find it odd almost all of us are being listed economically left of Obama? For most americans Obama is pretty far left economically, and I know I am much farther right then him in economic sense.

 

Well, Americans in general-even what appear to be extreme left- or right-wingers-are very close to the center in the global sense. Which is why, though Obama may appear as an extreme socialist to some Americans, he does not now, nor will he ever, have nothin' on Marx.

[user1991]

On topic, anyone find it odd almost all of us are being listed economically left of Obama? For most americans Obama is pretty far left economically, and I know I am much farther right then him in economic sense.

 

Well, Americans in general-even what appear to be extreme left- or right-wingers-are very close to the center in the global sense. Which is why, though Obama may appear as an extreme socialist to some Americans, he does not now, nor will he ever, have nothin' on Marx.

 

 

 

Obama is just as much a corporate puppet as Bush/Clinton.

 

 

 

The genuine frustration against the neo-con fascist machine that was the Bush/Cheney administration is being manipulated and abused by Obama's corporate interests (and no this isn't a big conspiracy, just look at the names of his admin.) It's right out in the open, yet the mainstream media seem to be ignoring it completely. I guess its only a coincidence that the same people who own the mainstream media are the people who are connected to all these private bankers and government officials.

 

 

 

And wow, Robert De Sable, have you heard of freedom? You might want to check it out sometime. Jesus Christ, how authoritarian can you be? It isn't even the right wing stuff that annoys me. The fact that you are that high up on the vertical scale is just worrying.

[magekillr]

Out of curiosity why do you disagree with the economic shift? Also, in what way are the health care and inflation questions libertarian favoring, Im sure it will make sense, I think im just missing something

 

 

 

On topic, anyone find it odd almost all of us are being listed economically left of Obama? For most americans Obama is pretty far left economically, and I know I am much farther right then him in economic sense.

 

 

 

First point:

 

 

 

I disagree with the economic shift because of the way the questions are worded. For this test, I answer the question, "Do you think people should get better health care if they have money" as "Strongly disagree" because I know that this question is seeing if you agree with universal health coverage or not. They don't have anything to do with libertarians, per se, but libertarians always complain about "printing money and inflation" when they really have no idea how economics actually work, or what "printing money" even is. They somehow believe that inflation is going to be a problem during this economic crisis, when the real fear is deflation; we currently WANT inflation, as it's really low right now (I think 0.2%).

 

 

 

Second point:

 

 

 

Because of Ronald Reagan. Americans are far more liberal than they understand, but the Overton Window in America has made such a radical shift that they don't even understand how far to the right both parties have shifted, and just continue down with the "tax and spend Democrats" and the "tax cut small government Republicans." They don't understand that there used to be a tax bracket of 91% for the super rich during Eisenhower (who was a Republican), or that Teddy Roosevelt was a very far left candidate even though he was a Republican.

 

 

 

Reagan changed all of that by building a coalition of racist, homophobic bigots as the party line for Republicans, which is why you have the group "Reagan Democrats" and "Dixiecrats." The coalition now known as "blue dog democrats" is what went to the Democratic party from the Reagan Dems, whereas the racist and homophobic group (in general) stuck with the Republicans. Ronald Reagan is why the Republicans are so full of "God" and is the reason the Republicans are so opposed to science. Here's a list of how Ronnie Reagan was so against science:

 

 

 

? His administration stalled the release of a report on acid rain from his own Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) panel, namely because it stood as an affront to his position of anti-regulation. The final report was watered down in the ensuing backlash against the panel.

 

 

 

? His administration targeted scientists who were unfriendly to the industry. Congress discovered a list of scientists in the industry-friendly EPA (at the time) that was essentially a list of scientists that were on that list for their political views (liberal views).

 

 

 

? He made the Republican Party the party of antievolutionism; While campaigning for president, he stated that evolution had "great flaws" and stated that public schools should teach the "biblical story of creation" as well. His science adviser refused to reject the teaching of creationism in public schools, his secretary of education took a similar line, stating that public school textbooks should reflect "the judgment of the community"... which was very subtle creationist rhetoric. Finally, he stated that evolution "is a scientific theory only, and [has] in recent years been challenged in the world of science."

 

 

 

? He paved the way for the dismantling of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), a scientific advisory panel, which was actually completed by Newt Gingrich (since he was in Congress) in 1995. The OTA wrote some not-so-shining assessments of the Star Wars project, which angered Reagan and allowed him to build an anti-science coalition of Republicans in Congress even further.

 

 

 

? He promoted "sound science," which sounds all well and good, but when he and other Republicans used the term, it actually referred to a veneer that camouflaged moves to deregulate anti-pollution laws and the like, as "sound science" also referred to science pushed by the industry that was favourable to what it was marketing.

 

 

 

? He refused to speak out against the AIDs epidemic in 1987, namely because of the influence of religious conservatives who thought it would lead to teaching sex education.

 

 

 

Just a list that I have saved. I know many old people that say, "Well my views haven't changed, but now I'm see as a radically left liberal when I was seen as a moderate in the past." It's all from Ronald Reagan.

 

 

 

Obama is just as much a corporate puppet as Bush/Clinton.

 

 

 

Lol, you sound like Ralph Nader. You know, corporations aren't inherently bad, and being strictly opposed to them and globalism makes you look like a fool.

 

 

 

The genuine frustration against the neo-con fascist machine that was the Bush/Cheney administration is being manipulated and abused by Obama's corporate interests (and no this isn't a big conspiracy, just look at the names of his admin.)

 

 

 

I see the big names in his admin, and I really don't know wtf you're talking about. I don't like Larry Summers, but that's about it. Tim Geithner has been a public servant his entire life, he's had opportunities to take jobs that pay far more than he received; his resume qualified him for far more money in my opinion. Just the selection of Charles Freeman that the extreme far right Zionists had to lambaste and deface was a sign that he is trying to solve the Israeli Gaza situation. So, yeah, you're full of it. This is like when Ralph Nader called Amartya Sen a "corporate shrill." If there's anyone that's NOT a "corporate shrill," it's Amartya Sen.

[Robert_de_Sable]

The TIFcompass is coming along. Allowing for new entries, it should be right on schedule for next week.

[mmmcannibalism]

in response to mage

 

 

 

agree to disagree on the economic, since it is a semantic debate at best lets leave it at that.

 

 

 

What was the income rate for that 91% tax?

 

 

 

While most of your points are somewhat accurate, the masses of america are pretty ignorant and just fall behind whoever has the best rhetoric. If Obama was preaching fascism 80% of the people that voted for him stilll would have, solely on the basis he was a better speaker then Mccain.

 

 

 

Id go more in depth, but I dont want this to turn into a giant economic debate. Im sure we agree on a lot of basic principal(universal health care would be good if it worked, the rich should have a higher tax rate and such) but I dont like a lot of your rhetoric that borders on hate speech towards anyone that isnt a socialist.

 

 

 

edit--robert, is it okay for you to just use deathdrows compass for me and move it one full notch towards economic left? I could go retake the quiz and get a screenie if that wont work.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Absolutely fine with me.

 

But can you stop the debate? Since it's just between the two of you, you can either take it to PM or start a debate thread.

[magekillr]

What was the income rate for that 91% tax?

 

 

 

I'm not sure, I can't find it. However, there were roughly 15 brackets, now there's only like six. And just to explain how taxes work so I don't see any faux news peddled like I did on ABC 1, your tax rates are not the same for every dollar that you make. So under Obama, the highest bracket of $336,000 (which is stupid to have the highest bracket so low) will be taxed 39%. Now, that's not to say every penny of $336,000 will be taxed 39%. If you make $336,001, you will be taxed at 39% just for $1, the rest will be taxed according to the other five brackets that we have.

 

 

 

Eisenhower was a flaming liberal, probably about as liberal as Dennis Kucinich. I'd say the Red Scare and Ronald Reagan pushed the Overton Window to the right.

 

 

 

"We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."

 

--Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

 

 

 

While most of your points are somewhat accurate, the masses of america are pretty ignorant and just fall behind whoever has the best rhetoric. If Obama was preaching fascism 80% of the people that voted for him stilll would have, solely on the basis he was a better speaker then Mccain.

 

 

 

You honestly believe that? How did George Bush win then? It's not the best rhetoric, Obama got elected for a few reasons over Bush:

 

 

 

1.) Bush's presidency was such a failure

 

2.) The coalition built by Rove is crumbling

 

3.) The coalition built by Reagan is dying off, being irrelevant, and younger people are more liberal than the younger people of the past

 

4.) McCain was a bumbling fool that chose an idiot for Vice President

 

 

 

Im sure we agree on a lot of basic principal(universal health care would be good if it worked, the rich should have a higher tax rate and such) but I dont like a lot of your rhetoric that borders on hate speech towards anyone that isnt a socialist.

 

 

 

I'm not a socialist lol, this is the exact crap that I'm tired of the GOP and the Media feeding the American people. I suppose idealistically I am a socialist, but in the real world I argue for the Swedish model. And to quote the former Swedish Prime Minister, Bo Lundgren, that solved the 1990's economic crisis of Sweden:

 

 

 

From the market liberals perspective, dont be afraid of Sweden being a socialist example because in this respect we are not. Governments shouldnt interfere in business life other than to build the legal framework within which our businesses have to work. They should otherwise leave businesses alone and thats what we mainly do.

 

 

 

And

 

 

 

He added that foreign observers often confuse Swedens socialized income distribution and government services with its privatized business environment, leading to inaccurate claims that their government is fundamentally different than other free-market economies. One example of Swedens privatization chops: The government is refusing to bail out the famed car company Saab this week, as officials say they dont think running an auto manufacturer is within the states job description.

 

 

 

Matthew Yglesias makes a great point about this:

 

 

 

Barack Obamas policy proposals would still leave the U.S. far short of what Swedens doing, but this is the direction in which his budget would move us, not to state control of the economy but to a regime of less income inequality and better public services. Thats good for most people, but bad for a wealthy and influential minority, hence the effort to scare people with the term socialism, meant to embark some kind of Stalinist central planning.

 

 

 

I do extremely dislike conservatism, but only because of facts, not ideology. I mean, if you want to value freedom over your money over the fact that certain things of certain societies work better, then fine. But don't tell me that freedom over your own money is more efficient or better treats the masses, that's just a flat out lie. I don't care about what ideology says what, I care about what works the best for the most people. So I don't approve of the minimum wage because it's a fact that it lowers employment, I don't agree with Unions that much anymore because I think they've overstayed their welcome and solved the problems that they fought for back in Debs' day (unions are no less corrupt than any other person with power), I don't support protectionism (Europe, especially France, you need to drop your protectionist policies). However, most of those things, many of my liberal colleagues will openly support because they support ideology over facts. If the facts said that a free market was the best route, then I'd welcome it.

[Lionheart_0]

Ya guys, take it to a PM. Anything continued after this is spam.

 

 

 

Lionheart_0