Short Political Quiz





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Short Political Quiz
By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

http://www.rpi.edu/~hilla2/quiz.htm

I scored 35 -- on par with Bob Dole.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Lord. What an awful bunch of questions.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

I didn't think they were that bad...but I'm a quiz addict. I take any and every quiz I see online, and like it, so my opinion is probably bias.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit

17 - right between clinton and powell

By Athlonmj (Athlonmj) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit

31

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 07:50 pm: Edit

26, one point away from Bush.

By Priglet (Priglet) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 07:51 pm: Edit

17, i don't know how. i'm a christian socialist, lol. i think i might know the guys who designed the site...weird. small internet.

By Jer728 (Jer728) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 08:28 pm: Edit

16. Right next to Clinton..Awesome

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 08:39 pm: Edit

11. sounds right.

By Jblackboy05 (Jblackboy05) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 08:48 pm: Edit

10-Hillary Clinton-hey I'm a diehard liberal

By Mac87 (Mac87) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

20-right in the middle

By Aceofhearts54 (Aceofhearts54) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit

30, yeah sounds right

By Benzo415 (Benzo415) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 10:14 pm: Edit

10, Right up with Hillary. I don't think I'm that liberal though, that's weird.

By Seleucus26 (Seleucus26) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit

8 - hillary

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 12:51 am: Edit

21, right near Colin Powell.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 01:45 am: Edit

31. Pretty much what I expected as I am conservative/libertarian, but some questions are not good.

By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 02:26 am: Edit

Right in the middle, 20.

By Helios (Helios) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 03:13 am: Edit

34- I thought I was leaning right, but not this much

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 03:24 am: Edit

the questions are not good because they are so black and white. For example, I do believe the govt is the way to go for military, policing, and courts, but not other things like healthcare and controling our retirement funds.

By Davidmayo (Davidmayo) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 04:18 am: Edit

7 - I must be a pinko commie sympathizer

By Jajas2 (Jajas2) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Whoo! I got an eight, lol. Im pretty much the benchmark for liberalism, so I think anyone who gets less that eight is pretty messed up, lol.

By Chocoman (Chocoman) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

19. Centrist.

John McCain for prez.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 05:27 pm: Edit

john mccain is not a centrist. He is a middle of the road republican. The only reason you might think he is because of his campaign finance reform, which is supported and not supported about the same by both parties.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Wow, 23 (24 if you count this one) posts and no political "debate" yet. This has got to be a record.....btw, this is not meant as a challenge so please keep it up.

I agree with Noodleman about the questions, so I didn't bother with the quiz. ;-)

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 08:19 pm: Edit

18 ---> centrist, above clinton and below powel

By Imperator_Shaf (Imperator_Shaf) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 08:25 pm: Edit

26->conservative.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 09:44 pm: Edit

27... that test was so annoying. My fairly extreme economic conservativism counterbalanced my moderate political liberalism to put me a few points away from GW. Ugh.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

how can you be politicly liberal, and than contradict your self and say your are economicly conservative.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Oh my god, Demingy! You're right! What did they put in the kool aid? I've never seen so little bickering on cc with politics.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Jlq, I meant socially liberal.

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:37 am: Edit

PurgeofDoors, I know how you feel (I received a 26).

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:01 am: Edit

socially liberal is a very vague term. It can be anything from supporting gay marriage to supporting affirmative action, drivers licences and healthcare for illegal immigrants, title 9, and other govt interventions that any libertarian would not approve of. A libertarian is socially very different from a liberal.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Boy is that ever true. A libertarian would be fine with someone smoking crack all day, as long as they didn't hurt anyone else, whereas a liberal would want him to stop and have taxpayers finance his rehabilitation!

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Libertarians support individualism such a high and unrealistic level. They seem to think everybody in their country is as responsible as them.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Well, there goes that.... It was good while it lasted. ;-)

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:49 pm: Edit

:O

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit

I couldn't stand it. I'm sorry. It's like an involuntary twitch thing. Political tourettes or something...

:)

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 03:05 pm: Edit

goodchocolate. That is not true. Libertarians/conservatives do not expect everyone to be responsible, but instead overall more successful and responsible with less govt control and more assistence from themselves, family, and private charities and groups.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

noodleman, a libertarian or any good person would not be fine with someone smoking crack all day, however the libertarian/conservative would not want govt to spend billions of dollars taking care of and outlawing people's personal problems which they believe could be better handled by other people, namly friends, family, religious institutions, and rehab centers run by the private sector...

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit

I'm both a libertarian and a good person. It would make me very sad to see you smoke crack all day, but I'd support your right to waste your own life if you so desire. Just don't come whining to me that you want me to put a roof over your head so your crack doesn't get wet.

Libertarian code in a nutshell:

If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it is OK. Thomas Jefferson.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of crackiness.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 04:45 pm: Edit

18 centrist

regan is to conservative as jesse jackson is to liberal?

I never knew regan was THAT conservative

By Demingy (Demingy) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Noodleman, I forgive you.... At least it is an amusing debate (had to keep from laughing too loud or my office neighbor would wonder).

Edit: Not that she doesn't anyway! ;-)

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit

scubasteve, well there really are not too many libertarian politicians, thats why they had someone who wasnt super conservative at 40. Reagan was a regular conservative.

By Bigtom (Bigtom) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 06:25 pm: Edit

7 (in between Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton)

I knew I was liberal but I didn't think I was that liberal...

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Demingy: The woman who sits across from me at work probably thinks I'm clinically insane with all the giggling I do for no apparent reason.

Amazing noodlefact: Nobody at my job even knows I've been doing 18 credits per semester at night for 2 years while working full time. It's pretty funny, actually. They just think I'm an early riser and that I like to get in at 5 to get more done. Hee hee.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 07:52 pm: Edit

At 6'6, you're a Huge liberal, tom. :)

By Quasarqueen (Quasarqueen) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 08:11 pm: Edit

27--smack dab in the middle

By Rachelvish (Rachelvish) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 08:23 pm: Edit

11 But listening to the idea of libertarian I think that I completely agree with the whole idea- with the current Bushiness, I doubt it will happen soon though

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit

rachel, i doubt you could be a libertarian with an 11. Bush is a lot closer to libertarian than kerry or nader.

By Alive4ever (Alive4ever) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 09:00 pm: Edit

I got 20.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Bush? Close to libertarian? Hah! Don't make me laugh. Republicans aren't much more conservative than Democrats. Each just gives away taxpayer money to different constituencies.

Patriot Act? Not libertarian.
Medicare Cash cow for Pharma? Not libertarian.
Nation Building in Iraq? Not libertarian.
Amending the Constitution for frivolous reasons? Not libertarian.

I could go on for hours.

The closest any Bush gets to libertarian is Laura. She was a librarian.

That quiz doesn't measure anything. It is a piece of poo.

By Rohit_Sn (Rohit_Sn) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit

16 not bad close to clinton.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Noodleman, you are right, neither party is libertarian, but republicans are much more in line with libertarians than liberals, who are almost complete opposites. The core of libertarians are lower taxes and smaller govt, while liberals advocate liberal use of govt intervention and control. Republicans just arnt as extreme in tax cutting as libertarians, but they both look in the same direction for MOST (not every) things, while liberals look the opposite way.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit

I don't mean to be mean or snotty or a know-it-all smartass, but you kinda need to get some facts straight.

Republicans are no better (and sometimes worse) than Democrats as far as regards fiscal policy.

1. The size of the federal gov't shrank under Clinton. It actually grew under Bush I, Reagan, and Bush II. So much for small-government conservatism. Look it up.

2. Bush I: Raised Taxes. Read my lips, my butt.
Reagan: Cut taxes, term one. Term 2? Raised taxes twice!
Clinton: Raised Taxes.
Bush II: Cut taxes, but really unevenly, and more for corporations than people. Why is that a problem? Because Libertarians support an even playing field and pure market-driven competition.

Little factoid for you: Corporate profits under Bush? Up 63%. Human wages? Up 2% (Adjust for inflation and people are making less than 3 years ago!)

Corporate welfare is still welfare, and still an entitlement. A real conservative cuts taxes and does away with entitlements. A real conservative lets the market work unencumbered. A real conservative doesn't play favorites. Dems and Repubs do.

3. Know who remade Affirmative Action into what it is today? RICHARD NIXON! Look it up. He came up with food stamps, too, and expanded welfare.

Know who slashed welfare by 70 Billion? Clinton!

I'm sick of typing.

Just don't believe all crap the RNC and Sean Hannity spoon-feed you. Do some research. Think for yourself.

Sorry for ranting.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit

and by the way, libertarians in general do not oppose the patriot act. Although they are for smaller govt, they are not for smaller, weaker, or less effective policing and a military. The generally oppose govt intervention into your economic and social life, not your criminal life.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

1. It did shrink under regean. It did grow under Bush 2, but a lot of that was for obvious reasons such as sept 11 and homeland security. And since you are trying to show that republicans are less like libertarians than dems are, Kerry would make the size of govt many times greater than Bush has. One of Kerry's policies is to nationalize 1/7 of our economy just through healthcare, not to mention raising taxes on income and many other things as opposed to Bush's tax cuts!!

2. Even though Reagan at times raised taxes, overall he cut them by a lot more than he raised them. Bush 2 cut taxes for everyone, and if corporations and the rich pay more, than their cut should be larger as well. Also, it is corporations and small businesses who hire and create jobs, so growing businesses helps everyone.
Of coarse a libertarian wants less entitlments, and both major parties are supporting them, but liberals are more infamous for gaining votes by victimizing and then entitling certain groups and business sectors.

Linden Johnson, a big liberal, was actually the first major politicion to push for affirmative action, and the parties that are for affirmative action today are overwhelmingly the liberal ones.


You can point out instances here and there where a republican does some somewhat liberal things, but that does not make the republicans overall liberal. You should look at the 2 parties core values and general pattern of actions and it is obvious that the Republican party, being the more conservative of the 2, is more similar to the even more conservative libertarian party.

By Thebarnrat (Thebarnrat) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 12:59 am: Edit

14....cool beans

By Irish200 (Irish200) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit

25

By Baggins (Baggins) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:42 am: Edit

18- I used to be a liberal but I guess moving to one of the most conservative part of the US has changed me. Some of those questions would have gotten different answers from me a few years back.

By Avs21 (Avs21) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 04:59 am: Edit

36

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 10:09 am: Edit

Both parties' goal value is to get reelected, dude. Get real.

1.
In 1980, the year before Reagan took office, federal spending comprised 21.7% of GDP. That figure had been in the high teens since the 1950s (during the height of WWII it reached over 40%). Throughout Reagan’s term, it stayed between 21% and 24%. Here are the numbers, beginning in the decade before Reagan took office and going to today.

1970: 19.3%
1971: 19.5
1972: 19.6
1973: 18.7
1974: 18.7
1975: 21.3
1976: 21.4
1977: 20.7
1978: 20.7
1979: 20.1
1980: 21.7
1981: 22.2
1982: 23.1
1983: 23.5
1984: 22.1
1985: 22.8
1986: 22.5
1987: 21.6
1988: 21.2
1989: 21.2
1990: 21.8
1991: 22.3
1992: 22.1
1993: 21.4
1994: 21.0
1995: 20.7
1996: 19.3
1997: 19.6
1998: 19.2
1999: 18.6
2000: 18.4
2001: 18.6
2002: 19.4
2003: 19.9
2004: 20.2

Reagan finished off about where he started, but his high point – 23.5% of GDP in 1983 – still stands as the post-war high in government spending. Even if you take alternate measures – say, federal spending per taxpayer – government got bigger during Reagan’s term. The good folks at the Heritage Foundation have some charts on this.

You may think this is good, or you may think this is bad. But let’s say this real slow: Ronald Reagan did not reduce the size of government.

2.
he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

3. It's Lyndon, not Linden. Yes, he was a huge liberal. Actually, though, it was Kennedy in 1961 who, by executive order, created preferences in federal contracting for African Americans.

It was Nixon who gave us employment quotas. And that's what everyoe fights about. He was the first to sanction formally delineated and quantifiable goals and time frames.

You need to do some readin and rithmetic!

By F3arxn03vil (F3arxn03vil) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:14 pm: Edit

24... sounds about right

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

noodleman, in the longrun, reagan cut govt because much of that increace in federal spending was due to his policy of spending the ussr into the ground with increacing military stregnth and technology such as the sdi. after the cold war finshed due to that temporary increace in spending, the military was allowed to stop buying new arms and spending was pulled back throughout the next decade. Also, much of that govt spending is in the form of tax cuts, which should actually just be considered a refund of sorts.

And I still do not get your point. Are you trying to say republicans are overall more liberal than democrats because they are not always doing purly conservative things and are sometimes compromising with liberals. I do not understand.

By the way, speaking about being spoonfed, plargerism is a crime that you committed in your post. Much of your sentences are entirly taken from other websites with no attempt to cite that it was not your own words or ideas.

By Student8712 (Student8712) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 03:48 am: Edit

word, 37

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 09:38 am: Edit

My points are simple:

1. Republican does not equal conservative.
2. That quiz is silly.
3. You regurgitate spoon-fed pablum without thinking much.

The mods don't seem to like it when you put links to other sites, so I went to the trouble of copying and pasting some info for you. I am glad you took the time to look stuff up, though. That's a good start! Keep reading. I encourage it!

This isn't a research paper. It's a message board. I'll start citing things when you stop spelling every other word incorrectly and use proper grammar. It's bad enough I actually waste time arguing with someone like you. Now you want MLA format? Or do you prefer APA?

Plargerism? LMAO!

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit

I'm both a libertarian and a good person. It would make me very sad to see you smoke crack all day, but I'd support your right to waste your own life if you so desire. Just don't come whining to me that you want me to put a roof over your head so your crack doesn't get wet.

Libertarian code in a nutshell:

If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it is OK. Thomas Jefferson.


Most people aren't as responsible as you'd think -- if the government doesn't do anything about social threats, the country will be a mess -- there will be widespread poverty, tons of crime (but it won't really be crime since it will be legal), and less businesses to provide you with the things you need. It's also hypocritical and unrealistic -- how can you have low taxes if you allow illegal immigrants to come here as they please, and attend public schools?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 01:15 pm: Edit

noodleman, it is clear you have resorted to ad hominum attacks. You accuse me of not thinking much. I wonder if you are taking a brainscan of me while I type this or if you just flat out disagree with me and that is why you are so sure I am not thinking.

Making typoes is nothing compared to plargerism, which is exactly what you did. Talk about spoonfeeding and thinking for yourself, you are laughable.

If you think conservative use of govt and lower taxes as a core philosophy are not conservative, than you are right, Republicans are not conservative. They just pretend to be and are accused of being conservative by liberals. If you go by the dictionary and conventional knowlege, then it is obvious that the Republicans are more conservative than democrats, no matter how hard you try to twist it with spotty selective, and plargerized facts.

By Copper45 (Copper45) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 01:31 pm: Edit

18. I always considered myself a moderate, leaning slightly toward the Democratic end of the spectrum. Some of those questions pissed me off, because you could only be for or against something, and some of the questions should not have been asked in the first place (like the women and Blacks one).

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 01:43 pm: Edit

plargerized facts

Libertarians shouldn't mind plagerized facts, since it neither breaks their leg nor picks their pocket.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit

goodchocolate, I do not think you have a good understanding of libertariansim. Libertarianism is not soft on crime, and plagerism is a crime. Plagerism is theft of intellectual property. If plagerism were legal, intellectual and industrial innovation would go down because peoples works and ideas would be stolen and they therefore wouldnt have motivation to create new innovative ideas and products. It is stealing, just not something as concrete or obvious as a car or cash.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit

I was joking...

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Look, buddy: I'm sorry about the snarky comment. I just get frustrated at the corruption of the conservative doctrine by self-serving republicans.

The only reason I'm not giving the Dems heat here is because they don't pretend to be conservative.

The word is "plagiarism" (Both of you. Come on.)

They're facts. Hard numbers and history. Not opinions. Facts. So it isn't plagiarism. The facts are public domain -- obtainable from the government. Go look. Did you expect me to retype the lists of numbers? It's called me being too lazy to cite. Get over it. This stuff is public record--not someone's opinion.

We, the people, are the owners of our government's facts and figures.

"If you think conservative use of govt and lower taxes as a core philosophy are not conservative, than you are right, Republicans are not conservative."

How are

The dept of homeland security
New Medicare entitlement
Looser immigration laws
Adding an amendment to the constitution
Nation-building
The most executive orders (the least democratic way to get things done) in history

conservative uses of government? Philosopy and actual policy are two totally different things. Very few republicans actually walk the talk. They're too busy (just like Democrats) paying back the rich guys who got 'em elected.

I'd love to see some republicans be more conservative. I'd also love to see the religious right quit trying to get their agenda enacted, too. A real conservative espouses the absolute and total constitutionally enumerated separation of church and state.

As far as tax cuts are concerned, I'd like to see a flat tax--where everyone pays the same rate. Including corporations. Corporations get away with murder under our wacked-out tax system. Do you pay taxes? Cause I do.


OK. Goodchocolate now.

I don't wanna get yelled at again, so, look here:

http://www.lp.org/issues/relegalize.html

Look at the rest of the site as well.

"if the government doesn't do anything about social threats, the country will be a mess"

The idea that we are widdle babies and need government to be mommy and daddy is what really chaps my knickers.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 02:51 pm: Edit

The idea that we are widdle babies and need government to be mommy and daddy is what really chaps my knickers.

You must live in a big "every man for himself" city like LA or NYC...

By Twinkletoes696 (Twinkletoes696) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 03:11 pm: Edit

When I click the link, all I get is a big box with a little white box within it on the top left corner with a red "X" on it.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 11:06 pm: Edit

"By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic."

Dont try to deflect my accusation. You did not just cite numbers, you took senteces from articles that were not statistics but copyrighted material.


I still dont get your point. Yes, republicans are not as conservative as libertarians, but they are more conservative than democrats. Just by posting republican actions that were not inline with libertarianism does not mean that republicans are less conservative than democrats. Either you dont get the point or you are deliberatly trying to use faulty reasoning.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit

goodchocolate, conservatism isnt "every man for himself", rather it advocates less government control of your life but instead people helping people through family, charity, friends, and yes, helping your self through effort.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit

sigh

By Rachelvish (Rachelvish) on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit

hey I totally agree with what Noodleman says- when I wrote that, I was thinking of the patriot act (I don't know where you got the idea that most liberitarians agree with the patriot act, but even if they do, that doesn't affect my opinion- it contradicts what you just said before about the ideals of little government control. And, I think most people would agree that seizure of medical records and wiretaps is extensive government control- in my opinion, extensive government exploitation!)

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Noodleman, you go in circles.

By Eclinchy (Eclinchy) on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 02:09 pm: Edit

15... making me quite possibly the first person since Monica Lewinsky to get right on top of Bill Clinton.

Interesting.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 04:57 pm: Edit

rachel, it isnt that libertarians are for 0 govt. They are for limited govt in your economic and social life. They are not going to limit crime prevention, which is one area whihc they believe govt is the most effective.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 10:01 pm: Edit

(Jlq3d3): You don't know what the #$%@ you're talking about.

THIS IS FROM THE OFFICIAL LIBERTARIAN PARTY SITE, OK??????

National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, July 2002, Indianapolis, Indiana

I. Individual Rights and Civil Order

Victimless Crimes

Because only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes, we favor the repeal of all federal, state, and local laws creating "crimes" without victims. In particular, we advocate:

a. the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances;


the repeal of all laws restricting or prohibiting the use or sale of alcohol, requiring health warning labels and signs, making bartenders or hosts responsible for the behavior of customers and guests, making liquor companies liable for birth defects, and making gambling houses liable for the losses of intoxicated gamblers;

the repeal of all laws or policies authorizing stopping drivers without probable cause to test for alcohol or drug use;

the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;

the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards";

b. the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling;


c. the repeal of anti-racketeering statutes such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which punish peaceful behavior -- including insider trading in securities, sale of sexually explicit material, and nonviolent anti-abortion protests -- by freezing and/or seizing assets of the accused or convicted; and


d. the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his or her own life.


We demand the use of executive pardon to free and exonerate all those presently incarcerated or ever convicted solely for the commission of these "crimes." We condemn the wholesale confiscation of property prior to conviction by the state that all too often accompanies police raids, searches, and prosecutions for victimless crimes.

Further, we recognize that, often, the Federal Government blackmails states which refuse to comply with these laws by withholding funds and we applaud those states which refuse to be so coerced.

________________________________

Libertarian National Committee urges repeal of USA/Patriot Act

[March 19] The Libertarian National Committee has voted to call for the repeal of the USA/Patriot Act, charging that it "sacrifices" the liberties of American citizens.

At its meeting in Evergreen, Colorado on March 16, the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) voted 10 to zero, with one abstention, to urge the repeal of the bill, which was rushed through Congress in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The resolution said the USA/Patriot Act "sacrifices many of our liberties and curtails many of our freedoms in the name of military security, thereby compromising some of the purposes for which [the United States] government was created."

While "securing our liberties and protecting our rights are among the primary purposes of the United States government," Libertarians "do not support sacrificing our liberties and curtailing our rights in the name of military security," the resolution noted.

Therefore, "the Libertarian National Committee calls for the repeal of the USA/Patriot Act," it stated.

The resolution was introduced by LNC Secretary Steve Givot.

LP Executive Director Steve Dasbach applauded the LNC's action, and said the resolution will help define what Libertarians stand for in the post-September 11 world.

"The Libertarian Party has previously endorsed appropriate military action to bring to justice the ruthless terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11," he said. "However, with this resolution, the LNC has drawn a line in the sand, and made it clear that Libertarians will not tolerate any infringement of our basic civil liberties in the name of combating terrorism.

"When Republicans and Democrats passed the USA/Patriot Act, they did an easy thing, given the mood of the public. When the LNC voted to repeal the bill, they did a difficult thing -- because real patriotism entails defending the Bill of Rights, even when doing so is unpopular, instead of sacrificing fundamental American principles during a time of crisis."

The USA/Patriot Act gave the U.S. attorney general the power to install the carnivore e-mail snooping system without a court warrant; expanded the legal definition of a "terrorist;" and made it easier for the government to tap multiple phones as part of a "roving wiretap."

The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, after passing the U.S. Senate 98-1, and the U.S. House 356-66.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit

noodleman, either way, your original claim is not true or substantiated. The republican party overall is more conservative than the democratic party, period.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 07:39 am: Edit

1. That wasn't my original claim.

My claim was that the Republican party spoke out of both sides of its mouth and was not truly "conservative" on a number of issues.

I cited (or actually didn't cite--copied and pasted some stuff without citing. Mea culpa, OK?) stuff about the Democrats to show that on some issues even "liberals" did stuff that was more "conservative" than the supposedly "conservative" Republicans.

Of course, overall, Republicans are "more" conservative than Democrats. I'm not an idiot, and wouldn't argue otherwise.

2. How about you admitting that you were wrong about Libertarians? Is that going to happen? Or are you just going to pretend you didn't read the quotes from the Libertarian Party platform I posted? Show a little character!

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit

Funny how you've conveniently disappeared, Jlq3d3.

Oh well.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 10:10 pm: Edit

I disappeared? I am responding to you on the same day and about the same number of hours you posted after me. Well, I dont think we have anything to argue about now that you finally capitulated to the point that republicans are OVERALL more conservative than democrats, and therefore are OVERALL more similar to the extremely conservative libertarian party

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 03:20 am: Edit

how intelligent of you.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 07:59 am: Edit

Thou art brobdingnagianally odious, loathsome, and haggard, and thy matron accouters thee in odd frocks.

By Jajas2 (Jajas2) on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 10:26 pm: Edit

This post is hilarious, lol. Keep it up you two.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 08:38 am: Edit

Only if we keep it light. I get heartburn from mean arguments. I should know better than to start.

By Ucbhopeful (Ucbhopeful) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 04:24 pm: Edit

16

By Iplayoboe (Iplayoboe) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

why didnt i find this thread earlier!!??
and i found (most) of you guys' above comments fascinating.
well, at least i read them
and i didnt fall asleep
lol
14
right next to Clinton, who is , btw, the maaaaan

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 02:45 am: Edit

20, same as Colin Powell

By Thermodude (Thermodude) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Libertarians in my opinion are not true conservatives. Only economically could they be considered conservative. However, their policy on allowing so much social freedom is VERY liberal. Historically, conservatives have always been in favor of placing limitations on social issues (i.e...conservatives of the 1800's in Britain were against freedom of the press..and also against extending voting rights....and such and such). Today, Republicans desire to restrict social issues far more than Democrats and Liberatirains (i.e...banning abortion, illegalizing drugs, placing limiations on what can be broadcasted on public telivision...). It is for this reason why everyone refers to the Republicans as conservatives....economically they might not be as conservative as liberarians, but socially, they are far more conservative.

By Vanessa1378 (Vanessa1378) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit

4- what more is there to say

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit

No. Libertarians are not socially liberal. They are vehimently against affirmative action, title 9, the american disability act, and almost any social spending and intervention by govt including social security and welfare, both large social programs most activly supported by liberals. They are true conservatives because they advocate conservative use of govt across the board, economicly and socially. They have differing opinions on gay marriage from the liberals. Liberals want the govt to sanction and reward gay marriage while a libertarian would say the govt should not give out marriage licences in the first place. The libertarians are closer to the republicans in terms of less govt social spending, but differ from both parties in that they dont want any govt social legislation (marriage, minority and other entitlements...)

By Brzrk (Brzrk) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 06:43 pm: Edit

12

Sounds about right. If I had to guess what I'd get before I took the test, I'd have said about a 7.

I didn't really like some of the questions though, for instance, it's such a stupid misconception that conservatives advocate a smaller government. Less economic involvement, yes, but much larger socially.

By Zero (Zero) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 07:20 pm: Edit

hooray for libertarians.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page