Thank you Noise for this website.
Would anybody like to post their results on the FAQ option?
Kerry - 76%
Kucinich - 76%
Bush - 18%
http:///www.presidentmatch.com
-
wehitandrun
- Posts: 1752
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:14 pm
- Location: Las Vegas, NV
- Contact:
79% Kerry
75% Kucinich
11% Bush
i answered conservatively on some stuff, 'cause i just don't know about the items involved, e.g. 'no child left behind' - i know it's a punchline to many a joke, but i don't know anything about the program.
yeah, i'm a liberal. i already knew that.
75% Kucinich
11% Bush
i answered conservatively on some stuff, 'cause i just don't know about the items involved, e.g. 'no child left behind' - i know it's a punchline to many a joke, but i don't know anything about the program.
yeah, i'm a liberal. i already knew that.
... name the stars and constellations,
count the cars and watch the seasons....
count the cars and watch the seasons....
-
wehitandrun
- Posts: 1752
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:14 pm
- Location: Las Vegas, NV
- Contact:
-
wehitandrun
- Posts: 1752
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:14 pm
- Location: Las Vegas, NV
- Contact:
I think the liberal/conservative labeling is juvenile. It just shows that the high-school bullshit doesn't end when you graduate.
People should be people, listen to each issue invidivually, and make a decision. Be conservative on somethings, be liberals on others... don't be A conversative, or A liberal.
People should be people, listen to each issue invidivually, and make a decision. Be conservative on somethings, be liberals on others... don't be A conversative, or A liberal.
That's true, wehitandrun, but you can't deny that conservatives generally care more about money, corporations, and outlawing abortions, and liberals generally care more about health, education, and the environment.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
-
miss buenos aires
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:15 am
- Location: jcnj
- Contact:
There's conservatism and liberalism, and then there's social issues and fiscal issues. You can be conservative regarding taxes and liberal on social issues (which, is, very broadly speaking, Libertarianism). Is there a name for someone who's liberal regarding taxes and conservative regarding social issues? It seems like such an odd thing to be.
-
Mr. Average
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Orange County, Californication
-
TheImposter
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:34 pm
Clearly I'm oversimplifying and generalizing. I suppose I'm jaded by Bush's presidency, which has put extremists at both ends of the spectrum in the media's spotlight.Mr. Average wrote:Blue:
Tell me that your post characterizing liberals and conservatives was in jest. The implicit bias is beyond prejudicial.
Media bias storms into the forum.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
Kucinich 90%
Kerry 81%
....and Bush didn't show up on my list at all. Does this mean *NOTHING* matched???
And to WHAR's complaint about labeling liberal/conservative....I understand your point here, but it's certainly not just about labeling. I think it's fairly common that someone who feels strongly about gay rights are also often strong proponents for pro-choice causes and vice versa. Obviously this isn't always true, but from experience I would say it's pretty common. If you're going to hold the anti-political labeling stance, I recommend focusing on the dem/rep type labels rather than liberal vs. conservative.
Kerry 81%
....and Bush didn't show up on my list at all. Does this mean *NOTHING* matched???
And to WHAR's complaint about labeling liberal/conservative....I understand your point here, but it's certainly not just about labeling. I think it's fairly common that someone who feels strongly about gay rights are also often strong proponents for pro-choice causes and vice versa. Obviously this isn't always true, but from experience I would say it's pretty common. If you're going to hold the anti-political labeling stance, I recommend focusing on the dem/rep type labels rather than liberal vs. conservative.
"Reagan Democrats," they were once called.miss buenos aires wrote:There's conservatism and liberalism, and then there's social issues and fiscal issues. You can be conservative regarding taxes and liberal on social issues (which, is, very broadly speaking, Libertarianism). Is there a name for someone who's liberal regarding taxes and conservative regarding social issues? It seems like such an odd thing to be.
BTW -- I was Kucinich 90%, Kerry 76% and Bush 2% -- I'm actually surprised by the 2%. Still, would never vote for that doof Kucinich. Sure, I agreed with him on most things and I'm not one of those (i.e., most people) who believe a true progressive could never be elected. It's just that he or she would have to be a populist, too and not a new-agey semi-idiot who happens to agree with me. And we'll have black lesbian Abortion Doctor President before we have a Vegan.
Not that he was half as liberal as he was painted, but I still miss Dean...Yeaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
So many points to respond to above that I don't know where to start. (All really interesting points, too, you thought-provokers, you).
Here's a scattergun attempt to coverse with a lot of you:
WHAR,
I think what you're saying is that people should resist labels and just decide how they really feel about a given issue, regardless of which political party holds the position in question. And if I understood that correctly, I whole-heartedly agree. I'll never understand the straight ticket voter who only chooses Democrats or only chooses Republicans, without ever checking the individual candidate's positions on the issues. That's one of the big problems I have with party politics; it reducesa the political discourse to bumper sticker ideology. I for one think all ideology is bullshit; it creates artificial and inflexible constructs that every issue is supposed to neatly fit into.
Take, for example the abortion issue. Both sides are so entrenched on this issue that every single directly and indirectly related issue gets treated as an abortion battleground. Someone kills a pregnant woman, and the argument is suddenly that they can't be charged with double murder--that would admit the fetus is a person. Or we cut funding of international programs that offer a host of health-related services, including plain old birth control and gynecological checkups because they happen to include the topic of abortion in their couinseling. What nonsense all around. Why can't Democrats admit that killing a pregnant woman is a worse crime than killing a non-pregnant woman? Why can't Republicans admit that there's a desperate need for proper birth control in the world and that talking about abortion is not the same thing as performing one? But most Americans want everything in black/white terms. "Abortion stops a beating heart." "Keep your laws off my body." Both popular bumper stickers, and both basically simplistic slogans that refuse to acknowledge the complexities of this important issue.
And what is a person to do who, say, is generally pro-life but also pro-environment. What if someone finds the pillage of the earth and late term abortion to be equally offensive? Who the hell can they vote for? They have to sell out one deeply held belief for another. Or what if they wish for gun control and want background checks at gun shows, but also think universal health care is a money pit pipe dream? I know people who feel exactly like the above two examples (have specific people in mind for each one, actually). Every election creates a huge ethical dilemma for them. And me, for my own issues.
No common ground will ever be found with the two party system, as it's inherently oppositional. I'm rambling, so I'll move to something else, but this is a big reason why I can't stand either party right now.
Miss BA,
I don't know what you call them but socially conservative and fiscally liberal is generally where I often find myself. I feel just right of center socially and just left of center fiscally. Of course, there are social issues about which I lean left (like I'm all for affirmative action when properly executed) and fiscal isues where I lean right (growing up with two parents who worked in the Public Defender's office, I think an aful lot of government spending is frivolous), but overall that's probably me. But I don't want to be called a Reagan Democrat. So Bobster's going to have to come up with a new term. I think you make an excellent point about the way the terminology is used and abused. It's very rarely so simple in real life to divide people up as "liberal" or "conservative."
Blue (and by extension Mr. Average),
I think you are indeed oversimplifying. From my fairly centrist point of view, both parties claim the moral high ground--just on different issues. It would be just as accurate (and inaccurate) to say that conservatives care more about patriotism, protecting freedom of religion, improving the economy, and saving the innocent unborn and that liberals care more about promoting homosexuality, hindering healthy business growth (and hence the economy in general) with high taxes and strict regulation, letting the international community dictate the direction our country should go, and removing any trace of faith from what has always been am overtly religious country.
Before anyone throws anything, keep in mind I was being purposefully thick in the above paragraph. But those characterizations are rampant in partisan politics. To ask a democrat, the GOP is in bed with evil corporations, wants to destroy the environment, hates women, hates gays, hates minorities, hates the poor, and wants to force right-wing Christianity down everyon's throats. To ask republicans, the dems are in bed with NAMBLA, wants to destroy the spirit of entrepreneurism, kills babies, wants to destroy families and the institution of marriage, promote libertine sexual behavior, and create a godless socialist society in which government has total control over everything. Neither is accurate. Neither is true. But the truth on each of these issues is so much more complicated and in many cases so dependent on context and interpretation that honest discussion would demand more time and energy than most people are willing to give. Any Republican who would deny that the tobacco lobby, the gun lobby, and the oil companies have undue influence in the GOP is delusional. But at the same time any democrat who would deny the undue influence of the trial lawyers and the unions is also delusional. Both parties are OWNED by special interets, not we the people. That's why I honestly believe that the sine qua non of any real political reform HAS to be campaign finance reform. If campaigns are not bought and paid for by lobbyists, corporations and special interests, but are rather funded by the people, candidates will be beholden to the people. And that's as it should be.
One of the reasons I like the web site above is that it allows me to look at issues that run the gamut and have opinions of varying degrees. There are some issues about which I feel strongly, others about which I feel less strongly, and others about which I honestly have no opinion. It's good to see how my opinions measure against both candidates' opinions. It would be even better if a genuine independent candidate unbeholden to an established platform and a host of lobbyists and special interests was a remote possibility.
Here's a scattergun attempt to coverse with a lot of you:
WHAR,
I think what you're saying is that people should resist labels and just decide how they really feel about a given issue, regardless of which political party holds the position in question. And if I understood that correctly, I whole-heartedly agree. I'll never understand the straight ticket voter who only chooses Democrats or only chooses Republicans, without ever checking the individual candidate's positions on the issues. That's one of the big problems I have with party politics; it reducesa the political discourse to bumper sticker ideology. I for one think all ideology is bullshit; it creates artificial and inflexible constructs that every issue is supposed to neatly fit into.
Take, for example the abortion issue. Both sides are so entrenched on this issue that every single directly and indirectly related issue gets treated as an abortion battleground. Someone kills a pregnant woman, and the argument is suddenly that they can't be charged with double murder--that would admit the fetus is a person. Or we cut funding of international programs that offer a host of health-related services, including plain old birth control and gynecological checkups because they happen to include the topic of abortion in their couinseling. What nonsense all around. Why can't Democrats admit that killing a pregnant woman is a worse crime than killing a non-pregnant woman? Why can't Republicans admit that there's a desperate need for proper birth control in the world and that talking about abortion is not the same thing as performing one? But most Americans want everything in black/white terms. "Abortion stops a beating heart." "Keep your laws off my body." Both popular bumper stickers, and both basically simplistic slogans that refuse to acknowledge the complexities of this important issue.
And what is a person to do who, say, is generally pro-life but also pro-environment. What if someone finds the pillage of the earth and late term abortion to be equally offensive? Who the hell can they vote for? They have to sell out one deeply held belief for another. Or what if they wish for gun control and want background checks at gun shows, but also think universal health care is a money pit pipe dream? I know people who feel exactly like the above two examples (have specific people in mind for each one, actually). Every election creates a huge ethical dilemma for them. And me, for my own issues.
No common ground will ever be found with the two party system, as it's inherently oppositional. I'm rambling, so I'll move to something else, but this is a big reason why I can't stand either party right now.
Miss BA,
I don't know what you call them but socially conservative and fiscally liberal is generally where I often find myself. I feel just right of center socially and just left of center fiscally. Of course, there are social issues about which I lean left (like I'm all for affirmative action when properly executed) and fiscal isues where I lean right (growing up with two parents who worked in the Public Defender's office, I think an aful lot of government spending is frivolous), but overall that's probably me. But I don't want to be called a Reagan Democrat. So Bobster's going to have to come up with a new term. I think you make an excellent point about the way the terminology is used and abused. It's very rarely so simple in real life to divide people up as "liberal" or "conservative."
Blue (and by extension Mr. Average),
I think you are indeed oversimplifying. From my fairly centrist point of view, both parties claim the moral high ground--just on different issues. It would be just as accurate (and inaccurate) to say that conservatives care more about patriotism, protecting freedom of religion, improving the economy, and saving the innocent unborn and that liberals care more about promoting homosexuality, hindering healthy business growth (and hence the economy in general) with high taxes and strict regulation, letting the international community dictate the direction our country should go, and removing any trace of faith from what has always been am overtly religious country.
Before anyone throws anything, keep in mind I was being purposefully thick in the above paragraph. But those characterizations are rampant in partisan politics. To ask a democrat, the GOP is in bed with evil corporations, wants to destroy the environment, hates women, hates gays, hates minorities, hates the poor, and wants to force right-wing Christianity down everyon's throats. To ask republicans, the dems are in bed with NAMBLA, wants to destroy the spirit of entrepreneurism, kills babies, wants to destroy families and the institution of marriage, promote libertine sexual behavior, and create a godless socialist society in which government has total control over everything. Neither is accurate. Neither is true. But the truth on each of these issues is so much more complicated and in many cases so dependent on context and interpretation that honest discussion would demand more time and energy than most people are willing to give. Any Republican who would deny that the tobacco lobby, the gun lobby, and the oil companies have undue influence in the GOP is delusional. But at the same time any democrat who would deny the undue influence of the trial lawyers and the unions is also delusional. Both parties are OWNED by special interets, not we the people. That's why I honestly believe that the sine qua non of any real political reform HAS to be campaign finance reform. If campaigns are not bought and paid for by lobbyists, corporations and special interests, but are rather funded by the people, candidates will be beholden to the people. And that's as it should be.
One of the reasons I like the web site above is that it allows me to look at issues that run the gamut and have opinions of varying degrees. There are some issues about which I feel strongly, others about which I feel less strongly, and others about which I honestly have no opinion. It's good to see how my opinions measure against both candidates' opinions. It would be even better if a genuine independent candidate unbeholden to an established platform and a host of lobbyists and special interests was a remote possibility.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
Mr. Average
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Orange County, Californication
Well said, Noiseradio. Couldn't agree more. And the beauty of democracy is that everyone has the freedom and the right to have their say: to at least be respected and heard. But the trouble is that (clicheed but always true too), with rights come responsibilities. We can't just blindly, mindlessly, naively, hand over power to other mere mortals like ourselves, some worthy and highly motivated and some not. Some start that way and then get bogged down by the vastness of the process. Demoocracy is always a live issue; it's up to all of us to point out shortfalls and make heard unrepresented views or skewed policy. Usually if everyone doesn't get it 100% their way, something's going right: everyone has to give something. I used this quite in a previous post, but it seems pertinent here again: "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men (sic) to do nothing".
oh I just dunno where to begin
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact: