"I Side With . . ." quiz

General General Discussion
41

You try disagreeing with 95% of a forum on the issues it likes to discuss most, and see how long you have the patience or desire to draft essays every single time a group dogpiles on you.

I have and will continue to go in-depth on various issues and at certain times, but it’s unreasonable to expect me to do it every single time there’s general disagreement with a simple statement I make - which is almost every day here.

And especially not when the charges are so vaccuous as in this particular case (it’s a slippery slope because you wrongly equivocate economics with a wider morality - X will lead to Y - and it’s a strawman because you don’t even know what my specific positions are before extrapolating what my greater worldview must be - you went from my left-leaning fiscal policies to saying I want the state to control every aspect of life - a false reduction, at best).

Not whining - just being realistic. I think I should have a reasonable expectation to participate in a thread like this - posting the quiz results, not without being challenged or criticized, but free from being obligated to indulge every single person who wants to either get a jab in or start an extended argument.

The point you make arises from a fundamental disagreement over economic-philosophy. You seem to solipsize your economic convictions into a wider moral framework. I don’t think my economic persuasions have the moral underpinnings you seem to assign them.

This isn’t something that can be covered in a few paragraphs. Can’t I just get some flexibility to post my numbers like everyone else, and indeed be criticized for them (to be expected), but NOT be obligated to get into some extended tangential discussion without getting called out for it? ESPECIALLY when the charges I’m being asked to answer for are based off of NUMBERS from a quiz website, and barely from anything I’ve actual said?

42

I did not equate economics with a wider morality. I only recognized that the power to implement left-leaning economic policies by necessity means a powerful state that has no limits and hence recognizes no rights, only privileges. In other words, if the state can implement “left leaning” economic policies, it can do anything else it darn well wants. Whether or not you advocate such things explicitly is not the question. Your economic beliefs lead to such an outcome from a philosophical standpoint.

Not whining - just being realistic. I think I should have a reasonable expectation to participate in a thread like this - posting the quiz results, not without being challenged or criticized, but free from being obligated to indulge every single person who wants to either get a jab in or start an extended argument.

SMETNA asked a question. You could ignore or decline to answer. But you chose to answer, which opens up new criticisms and questions.

The point you make arises from a fundamental disagreement over economic-philosophy. You seem to solipsize your economic convictions into a wider moral framework.

No. I only recognize certain things about certain positions. Like if the state has the power to implement “left leaning” economic policies, it really has no limits when you really look at it. I make no moral judgements or assume no moral framework.

And your condescending BS just make you look stupid btw/

I don’t think my economic persuasions have the moral underpinnings you seem to give them.

I gave them none.

This isn’t something that can be covered in a few paragraphs. Can’t I just get some flexibility to post my numbers like everyone else, and indeed be criticized for them (to be expected), but NOT be obligated to get into some extended tangential discussion without getting called out for it?

Yes, you can just post numbers like anyone else. Once you start pontificating though you better back it up.

–

43

It’s like the twilight-zone with you man. I rarely engage you because you don’t ask “well what do you think about X” or “what do you believe.” You went straight to TELLING me what I must think about gun control or the role of the state in every single facet of life from my simple statement of “left-leaning economics.” Hence your statements: “What you really advocate for is gun privileges” and “you already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person’s existence.” Fucking really, dude? From “left-leaning fiscal policy?” REALLY? If that’s not a slippery slope fallacy and a huge exaggeration, I’ve never heard one.

You’d of had much better luck asking me to expand on specifically what I think beyond “left leaning fiscal policy” before going on the attack and making me answer for charges I didn’t commit.

With SMETNA, it went straight from numbers to gun control. At least his was more of a question that could lead to dialogue. With you, it went from a 4 word statement, “left leaning fiscal policy,” to me assaulting basic human dignity and liberty. If that’s not equating economics with a wider moral framework, I don’t know what is. I can only argue with people who agree that A=A and B=B. You can’t say “you already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person’s existence” and then argue that you haven’t assigned false moral underpinnings to a simple, non-specific statement I made.

If you’re genuinely curious about what I think because of the poll numbers I posted, then ask questions. Don’t go on the attack based on numbers and 4 word statements. Or if you DO go on the attack, at least make it for things that you can legitimately derive from 4 word statements like “left-leaning fiscal policy.” Sorry, but total control of the state into every facet of human existence is not one of those things. I see no reason to respond to empty statements like that.

Done here, unless you want to change the tone and ask me what I think, instead of fabricating false extensions of simple things that I say and then putting me on trial for them.

44

Alright. So you’re not a nanny-stater. Points awarded!

But there must be more to your stance than just “left leaning fiscal policy” if you’re 89% in the democrats’’ corner.

It is a hokey Internet quiz. But it has done a pretty decent job of confirming the quiz takers’ stance, IMO.

When I think of the democratic party, I think:
• Raise taxes, spend money on socialist programs “that benefit everybody”
• Expand government, regulations
• Placate minorities with affirmative action, selective prosecutions, and do nothing about the southern border
• Redistribute wealth
• Placate the poor by choice, lazy by choice
• Chip away at the constitution by attempting to ignore the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments, and giving themselves broad powers based on the words “promote the general welfare” in the PREAMBLE.
• Act in a condescending, asinine way and make the subjects’ decisions for them, as they clearly aren’t smart enough
• Talk about defending nature and the environment constantly while they live in big cities and have only been to the woods a handful of times

45

Well, I do take issue with the way you color some of these points, IE, social programs primarily serving to placate and benefit the poor and lazy by choice, as if poverty is in any statistically significant way the result of an ethical failure on the part of the poor person. It may be for some, but to apply this narrative in a general sense is dangerous.

It’s 430 here, and also I do think any real look into any of this stuff involves some “heavy lifting” and goes beyond what can be done in a reply of reasonable length. Your reply is basically a list of assertions - what good would a litany of assertions from me in response be?

So I’ve attached a few ZIP folders containing PDF’s that I’ve scanned from books into files from various sociological and economic sources that I’ve read over the last 5 or 6 years. They all directly address the issues brought up on the list and are for the most part, with some exceptions, representative of my views also. Even if you disagree with the arguments, it’s better material than you’re going to find from most online sources and you might find them interesting, even if you think they’re wrong.

If you decide to take a look, let me know if you have issues with the download. It’s my first time using this site so I’m not sure how well it will work.

http://www20.zippyshare.com/v/95540531/file.html

46

Question 9. Should Congress raise the debt ceiling?

‘‘Yes. Congress should raise the debt ceiling during a recession.’’

Doesn’t that sound sarcastic as shit?

47

[b]83% Gary Johnson

82% Ron Paul

67% Mitt Romney

43% Barack Obama [/b]

[i]63% Libertarian

56% Republican

51% Democratic

20% Green [/i]
Now. Here are the details.

Immigration

I side the most with Gary Johnson on immigration issues.

Domestic policy

I side the most with Ron Paul on domestic policy issues.

Healthcare

I side the most with Gary Johnson on healthcare issues.

Science

I side the most with Mitt Romney on science issues.

Social

I side the most with Barack Obama on social issues.

the Environment

I side the most with Mitt Romney on environmental issues.

the Economy

I side the most with Gary Johnson on economic issues.

Foreign Policy

I side the most with Gary Johnson on foreign policy issues.

48

IMO, two things:

There is no real poverty in this country. Even the poorest among us can have electricity, a refrigerator, a tv, a cell phone, a car. Americans don’t know what poverty is, so I don’t think there ought to be any social programs to help them. The poorest American lives like an upper middle class chinaman.

Second: the poor have every opportunity to move up, under their own hard work. My grandmother was a cafeteria cook, my mom is a superintendent of a school district, and my sister is a lawyer. Just because you’re born in the hood doesn’t mean you’re destined to stay there. Hard work is rewarded here. Poor people are lazy, that’s why they’re poor. (or, in some instances, they just prefer to live simply, but in those cases they aren’t looking for free benefits)

49

91% Ron Paul
on economic, domestic policy, immigration, science, and social issues

91% Mitt Romney
on economic, domestic policy, social, healthcare, foreign policy, environmental, and immigration issues

82% Virgil Goode
on economic, domestic policy, social, healthcare, and immigration issues

81% Gary Johnson
on domestic policy and economic issues

20% Barack Obama
no major issues

10% Rocky Anderson
no major issues

5% Jill Stein
no major issues

50

Not surprised by the results. Romney is still not my first choice but he is the most viable choice.

93% - Mitt Romney
83% - Ron Paul
79% - Gary Johnson (who is this?)
39% - barrack obama (I refuse to capitalize this pos’ name)

56% - with Virginia Voters
55% - with American Voters

92% Republican
72% - Libertarian
17% - dumboKratic
10% - Green

51

He is the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President this year. He will be on the ballot in all 50 states and is a former governor of New Mexico.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_johnson

52

Takes one to know one. It is like talking to some stuck up pompous idiot talking to you. You say things and when people disagree with you or point out your errors you smugly say that you are better than we are and have no need to respond or defend your statements.

I rarely engage you because you don’t ask “well what do you think about X” or “what do you believe.” You went straight to TELLING me what I must think about gun control or the role of the state in every single facet of life from my simple statement of “left-leaning economics.” Hence your statements: “What you really advocate for is gun privileges” and “you already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person’s existence.” Fucking really, dude? From “left-leaning fiscal policy?” REALLY? If that’s not a slippery slope fallacy and a huge exaggeration, I’ve never heard one.

Truth hurts. The fact is, philosophically, if you believe in “left leaning economics” then you believe in a state powerful enough to do anything or enact anything in terms of intrusion in peoples’ lives. Whether you personally support such intrusions is immaterial. You support the state being powerful enough to do so. That is the FACT of the matter. “Left leaning economics” cannot be enacted without such power. This is where the whole “commerce clause” BS comes in. They have to have the power to do whatever they want (in terms of regulating and intruding on other peoples’ lives) in order to be able to confiscate wealth from others to redistribute it, which is the basis of “left leaning economics”

You’d of had much better luck asking me to expand on specifically what I think beyond “left leaning fiscal policy” before going on the attack and making me answer for charges I didn’t commit.

No need. The basis of “left leaning fiscal policy” is wealth redistribution (under governmental aegis and by governmental force). Redistribution without that is not “left leaning”. It is called “the market” and is rather the antithesis of “left leaning.”

I’d have been happy if you’d left it at “the numbers.” But you started pontificating in response to SMETNA and were hence open game for further questions and/or comments.

Heaven knows you like to comment on others and say how “f*-ed” they are or they are spewing BS. Done so in a condescending way. (cf. your “solipsize” comment.)

With SMETNA, it went straight from numbers to gun control. At least his was more of a question that could lead to dialogue. With you, it went from a 4 word statement, “left leaning fiscal policy,” to me assaulting basic human dignity and liberty.

Again, you draw conclusions that I did not state. I did not say you were assaulting basic human dignity and liberty. I said that your position of “left leaning fiscal policy” (I said economics earlier) leads to the conclusion that you support an all-intrusive state regulation of people and business as that is the only way to enact “left leaning fiscal policy” and such a state has the power to also completely regulate firearms, hence there are no “firearms rights”, only “firearms privileges.”

If that’s not equating economics with a wider moral framework, I don’t know what is. I can only argue with people who agree that A=A and B=B. You can’t say “you already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person’s existence” and then argue that you haven’t assigned false moral underpinnings to a simple, non-specific statement I made.

Sure I can. I was pointing out the logical conclusion of such policies as it refers to state power. There is no moral underpinning there. It is a statement of logic and fact.

If you’re genuinely curious about what I think because of the poll numbers I posted, then ask questions. Don’t go on the attack based on numbers and 4 word statements. Or if you DO go on the attack, at least make it for things that you can legitimately derive from 4 word statements like “left-leaning fiscal policy.” Sorry, but total control of the state into every facet of human existence is not one of those things. I see no reason to respond to empty statements like that.

Done here, unless you want to change the tone and ask me what I think, instead of fabricating false extensions of simple things that I say and then putting me on trial for them.

53

The dude had the balls to post his left-leaning political views on a freaking GUN FORUM. If you want to take him to the woodshed for it, PM is probably a better place. No disrespect, just sayin’…

54

95% Ron Paul
on immigration, domestic policy, economic, healthcare, foreign policy, and environmental issues
93% Mitt Romney
on economic, immigration, domestic policy, healthcare, and environmental issues
92% Gary Johnson
on domestic policy, economic, foreign policy, healthcare, environmental, and science issues
28% Barack Obama
on science and social issues
56% Florida Voters
on domestic policy, economic, environmental, foreign policy, science, and social issues.
54% American Voters
on domestic policy, environmental, foreign policy, science, and social issues.

55

We are in significant disagreement on that as well.

Unlike Ron Paul, Jill Stein advocates simplistic sounding, deliberately misrepresented and incredibly dangerous views that would be gleefully gobbled up by the uninformed majority of the public and rapid expressed through Congress.

Hard as it might be for anyone here to fathom, I think Jill Stein would be even worse than Obama.

Ron Paul would be an extremely valuable course correction. But much like Reagan, he would have an opposition Congress undermining him from both sides of the aisles as he would be taking money out of their pockets for a change. Assuming he is as good as his word.

56

I’m gonna disagree with you on both points.

There was a time in my life when I was “this close” to homeless (camping with a plan) and I had none of those things. I have a very real understanding of what poverty is from personal experience.

And once you drop below “this line” it is damn fucking hard to get back above it. Everyone says “get a job.” Do you have any idea how hard that is to do when you don’t have a place to live? Not like you can shower and shave in a public bathroom. When you wear shitty clothes to an interview you generally don’t get hired.

I was in that boat with a lot of people. It was mostly luck and the fact that I knew a few people who helped me that I was able to get out of that boat. I could have just as easily been fucked for good.

57

Sounds like you need to take a ride around Pike county, Ohio. I know of a couple homes that still don’t have electricity, running water, and still have dirt floors.

58

Paul 90%
Johnson 87%
Romney 86%
Obama 46%
Ca voters 52%
American voters 53%

59

Johnson 92%
Paul 91%
Romney 77%
Obama 27%
Ohio voters 52%

I’m surprised, as up until I read this thread, I never heard of Gary Johnson…

60

This guy would disagree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcZTtlGweQ

The real guy this movie is about DID shave and bathe and even sleep IIRC in a public restroom