wjag Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Economic Left/Right 1.62Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -0.97 So according to this (extremely scientific magazine survey ;) ) I am economically conservative and a libertarian. Which is pretty much where I'd have expected to be pegged, although I'd have expected both #'s to have slightly higher magnitudes. I'm Economic Left/Right -3.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -2.00 I'm a Republican for God's sake, who am I? :blush: I'm so confused: :w00t: Maybe, just maybe, this explains why W appealed to me the first time around. I couldn't wait to bounce the Dems from office. I got sucked in with the Compassionate Conservative mularkey W was spreading to get elected. And then the evil spawn of Compassionate Conservative emerged... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRobertEichel Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I had the same directions, but higher numbers: 3.00, -3.23. I would actually guess that in a more comprehensive study, I would be more right than 3.00. My numbers were even higher: 5.75 right, -5.90 libertarian. I probably just clicked on more of the "very" choices than you. For me, I can say the test was pretty accurate. I did vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries, after all, and am voting Barr/Root on Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 A grown man actually thinks this? :unsure: OMG! The GOP has been doing all in its power to fight government sponsored health care since the New Deal. Maybe you should read some history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I'd be more inclined to say that the neocons destroyed everything that Reagan worked so hard to accomplish for America. That so-called Contract with America would have worked if they held their part of the bargain by passing term limits on themselves. Perhaps this would have helped Ted Stevens out in the long run. Given what the Republicans have done to the conservative base, I am really starting to think that the Republican Party is dying and they only have themselves to blame for it. Conservatism isn't dead - it's just going to have to find another party like the Constitution Party in which to reinvigorate itself. What have the "neo-cons" done that was so different than Reagan? That old idiot simply ran up the deficit just like the clowns in the White House today. I believe term limits were passed but ruled unconstitutional by supreme court. The Constitution party? Are they not libertarians or something? Libertarianism is a fine idea, as long s it just stays an idea. Its a childish daydream of people that try and blame the government for all their percieved ills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 OMG! The GOP has been doing all in its power to fight government sponsored health care since the New Deal. Maybe you should read some history Except when they expand it. Just how big would government health care be if the GOP, in it's never ending quest to reduce government sponsored health care, hadn't added the prescription drug rider to Medicare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Except when they expand it. Just how big would government health care be if the GOP, in it's never ending quest to reduce government sponsored health care, hadn't added the prescription drug rider to Medicare? There are, of course, always exceptions to the rule :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Except when they expand it. Just how big would government health care be if the GOP, in it's never ending quest to reduce government sponsored health care, hadn't added the prescription drug rider to Medicare? IMO, this nations health care system is spiraling out of control. I am going to say this from only my perspective as one voter. Each year the cost of health care weighs heavier and heavier on my limited budget. With McCain's proposed changes that weight will magnify to a point that in a year or two I may have to just for go health care coverage and hope for the best. My company's enrollment for 2009 is next week and I am seriously considering passing this year. Here I am, married and we both work full time. We should be able to have affordable health care. To say the government should have a limited or no role in this nation's health care to me is unfathomable. The government sat on the sidelines and watch as the mortgage and stock markets crumbled. Now we wil all be paying a hefty sum of $700 billion. IMO, there are two choices. The government can be proactive and try prevent a national health care crisis now or the can wait until the national crisis is fully blown and they can try to correct at that point at a much greater cost as they did with the current economic crisis. Again, this is just my opinion. To me the answer seems clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I couldn't wait to bounce the Dems from office. ...because of a BJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROC Sabres Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 IMO, this nations health care system is spiraling out of control. I am going to say this from only my perspective as one voter. Each year the cost of health care weighs heavier and heavier on my limited budget. With McCain's proposed changes that weight will magnify to a point that in a year or two I may have to just for go health care coverage and hope for the best. My company's enrollment for 2009 is next week and I am seriously considering passing this year. Here I am, married and we both work full time. We should be able to have affordable health care. To say the government should have a limited or no role in this nation's health care to me is unfathomable. The government sat on the sidelines and watch as the mortgage and stock markets crumbled. Now we wil all be paying a hefty sum of $700 billion. IMO, there are two choices. The government can be proactive and try prevent a national health care crisis now or the can wait until the national crisis is fully blown and they can try to correct at that point at a much greater cost as they did with the current economic crisis. Again, this is just my opinion. To me the answer seems clear. But the problem here is it doesn't matter how much it cost to do it now or later. Either way, it's our money they will fix it with so what's do they have to worry about? :wallbash: :thumbdown: Either way, I'm thinkin about moving to Petoria. Can't Touch Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 What have the "neo-cons" done that was so different than Reagan? That old idiot simply ran up the deficit just like the clowns in the White House today. I believe term limits were passed but ruled unconstitutional by supreme court. The Constitution party? Are they not libertarians or something? Libertarianism is a fine idea, as long s it just stays an idea. Its a childish daydream of people that try and blame the government for all their percieved ills. The Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party are two distinct parties....(geesh, it's kind of scary you don't know this) From www.constitutionparty.com, "It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations." From www.lp.org, "Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility" IMHO, I would love to see a third-party platform get elected to serve as President, but, sadly, our "democratic republic" is truly a two-party system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 IMO, this nations health care system is spiraling out of control. I am going to say this from only my perspective as one voter. Each year the cost of health care weighs heavier and heavier on my limited budget. With McCain's proposed changes that weight will magnify to a point that in a year or two I may have to just for go health care coverage and hope for the best. My company's enrollment for 2009 is next week and I am seriously considering passing this year. Here I am, married and we both work full time. We should be able to have affordable health care. To say the government should have a limited or no role in this nation's health care to me is unfathomable. The government sat on the sidelines and watch as the mortgage and stock markets crumbled. Now we wil all be paying a hefty sum of $700 billion. IMO, there are two choices. The government can be proactive and try prevent a national health care crisis now or the can wait until the national crisis is fully blown and they can try to correct at that point at a much greater cost as they did with the current economic crisis. Again, this is just my opinion. To me the answer seems clear. While I doubt that many (any) here are suggesting the government should have NO role in this nation's health care, universal health insurance is not going to cure the system's ills. There are a lot of smaller fixes that can be applied. I started to go into a list of some of these items and realized that in order for the post to be coherent covering them I'd be here for the next hour or 2, and I don't have that kind of free time. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Its a childish daydream of people that try and blame the government for all their percieved ills. Would this be similar to the childish daydreams of people that try to assert government is the cure for all their perceived ills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted October 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 While I doubt that many (any) here are suggesting the government should have NO role in this nation's health care, universal health insurance is not going to cure the system's ills. There are a lot of smaller fixes that can be applied. Exactly. In fact, universal health insurance is likely to create whole new "ills". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Would this be similar to the childish daydreams of people that try to assert government is the cure for all their perceived ills? yes, those that view gov't in both veins are cut from the same cloth - gov't is the ultimate enabler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 IOW, the pendulum swings as it may. Come 2010, the Dems may wind up doing themselves in. 1994 is a prime example of this. The congressional dems shot themselves in the foot then since they didn't like the outsider Clinton having control of the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 IMHO, I would love to see a third-party platform get elected to serve as President, but, sadly, our "democratic republic" is truly a two-party system. Bring back the Whig's! (or no-nothing's or pick your own favorite old timey party!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 The Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party are two distinct parties....(geesh, it's kind of scary you don't know this)From www.constitutionparty.com, "It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations." From www.lp.org, "Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility" IMHO, I would love to see a third-party platform get elected to serve as President, but, sadly, our "democratic republic" is truly a two-party system. Sounds like the American Taliban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Would this be similar to the childish daydreams of people that try to assert government is the cure for all their perceived ills? Yes, the Communists and Libertarians are equally stupid, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I don't know if middle class is shrinking, but I do think that it is harder for a lot of people to get there. For people that are smart enough to go to college it's pretty easy. For those that can't its tougher. They are the people that have been left behind by the new economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Bring back the Whig's! (or no-nothing's or pick your own favorite old timey party!) Vote Tupperware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRobertEichel Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 The Constitution party? Are they not libertarians or something? No. The Constitution Party is the party of paleoconservatives (Pat Buchanan types). A person with libertarian ideas would be much more comfortable in the appropriately named Libertarian Party. You might be conflating the two parties because of Ron Paul, who has at times straddled the fence between paleoconservatism and a particular brand of libertarian thought - popular in the Bible Belt - called paleolibertarianism. The difference between paleocons and paleolibs and traditional libertarians is largely seen in how they choose to treat complex social issues (abortion, gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc...). Paleocons want to keep that stuff banned at the federal level, paleolibs want these decisions to be left up to the individual states, and traditional libertarians want to make it all legal at the federal level. Did this explanation help? Libertarianism is a fine idea, as long s it just stays an idea. Its a childish daydream of people that try and blame the government for all their percieved ills. So in your view, the American Revolution was kind of like Lord of the Flies?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Economic Left/Right: -3.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.21 Kind of a Gandhi with food on the table? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Economic Left/Right: -3.12Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.21 Kind of a Gandhi with food on the table? :rolleyes: F'in' communist. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRobertEichel Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 F'in' communist. ;) A woman that loves the Sabres AND laissez-faire capitalism?! Alas, it was an illusion too good to be true :cry: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_Dudley Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Economic Left/right -3.25 Social Libetarian/Authortarian -.10 Kinda rushed through it but maybe thats better than putting too much thought into answers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.