Tendo City

http://madrabbit.net/webrabbit/quizshow.html
I think this has been posted before but I still think it's interesting

I got 2 Points, but I don't understand why(the more points you get the more conservative it says you are) I said I don't think more money should go to aids than to heart disease or cancer because aids effects younger people, I think reasonable amounts of money should be placed into reasearching both of them and that one shouldn't get more than another just because one group of people is affected more

You do know that 2 points means that you are extremely liberal? Or do you mean 20?

Anyway, I got 20 points putting me somewhere in-between liberal and conservative.

I got a 34 out of 40. That would make me intelligent. And a conservative, but there's no need to be redundant.

As if there were any doubt.

No I got 2, but I think that it should have been 0
For example the do you trust lawyers or doctors more, when I took the test I wasn't thinking about labour advocats or public defenders, or those defending peoples civil rights, I thought of corprate lawyers and those stupid ones that have tv comercials every 30 seconds, also my view of a doctor may be different than the typical americans view of a doctor since I don't think of doctors and hospitals as being out to make money since we have universal healthcare. If I had thought about what kind of lawyer they were talking about when I took the test I probably would have chosen that one, and I still don't like that aids funding question, I think it should get more funding that it curently does but I don't think it should get it just because there are more younger people affected than with other diseases
Therefore I think that my score should have been 0

I got 1 point... I wonder where from... didn't think I'd said anything that would get me one.

I was upset when I got 2 so I had to figure out why and come up with an explenation as to why the test was wrong

Yeah, I want an explanation here for that point... I doubt I earned it...

22, which puts me in the center, of which I am content.

Bah! Can't find that point... oh well. One point is pretty good.

That's okay. Liberals make excellent zeroes.

Ha ha. Its just annoying that I can't find where that point came from...

I got 25 so Im happy about that

Lmao Jesse Jackson, you people are terrible

I got a 20 which makes sense. Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, and strictly taking only one side isn't wise.

I would have got a higher number, but I said that I believed in the government, which, according to the quiz is a liberal view.

It is.

Case in point: radical right-wing militia from Alabama who shoot at feds with hunting rifles

Yeah, conservatives think the government is useless or something...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Yeah, conservatives think the government is useless or something...

You're confusing us with Anarchists, which are unquestionably liberal. Government should govern. And keep it's damn sticky hands out of private enterprise :)

But you just agreed that my comment was correct after saying that it wasn't...

i got 15 which puts me right up there with mr william clinton.

i consider myself a pretty liberal guy, but not much of a democrat. i dunno, i think the 15 suits me great. i am sort of a middle of the roader when it comes to the government.

that aids question is pretty dumb i think...since aids is a problem, and needs to be dealt with, but cancer is more serious, IMO. there's protection that can help reduce the risk of HIV infection, and masturbation...but anyone can get cancer, and anything can cause it, so i feel it should have more study put into it.

whatever

I'm not following. I'm saying government should do it's job, which is to administer the various constituencies, depending on the level, and not to harm the economy by creating idiotic regulations on private industry. Anarchists believe there should be no government period.

anarchists are pretty stupid for the most part...although i've heard that at times they can have some convincing arguments. and i've encountered a few rare situations where i've felt that the government had let me down and that organizing a posse to handle an issue would rectify the situation.

I got 20 points.... What's with me and these internet tests?

Without a organized goverment it would be hell on earth, Thank god the arnarchist never thought of starting a political party.

Liberals are zombies!

Indeed!


NO BLOOD FOR OIL! DOWN WITH AMERICA! RAR!

I scored a 19, just 1 point short of being up there with Colin Powell. I'm highly satisfied with that score. Neither party is 100% right or 100% wrong in everything which is why I never plan to always vote Democratic or always vote Republican. It depends on the condition of the US and the world and the views of the candidates. I'm glad Bush was president on 9-11-01. Gore wouldn't have taken as much military action as Bush did, and Bush did right. However, if we're in a time of peace and the economy isn't doing too well, I'm more likely to vote a Democrat into office. It all depends...

Quote:Thank god the arnarchist never thought of starting a political party.

Anarchist parties existed in both the Russian and Spanish civil wars... in the first case they even constituted their own "Black Guard" (as opposed to the bolshevik Red Guard) and had a House of Anarchy in Moscow... reports say it was one of the filthiest, most disgusting places you could enter, likening it to a waste dump...

In Spain their military arm was called "la Colonna de Hierro" (the Iron Column), and on top of losing to Franco's Nationalists they got betrayed by their communist allies in the dying hours of the Spanish Republic.

Interesting bit of history, the anarchists. It's a dead ideology though, like fascism and to a lesser extent communism.

Anarchy is like bungee jumping without a cord. It's damn stupid. However, I do like the idea of an anarchist bungee jumping without a cord. :evil:

Weltall, listen to youself. The scale could have easily been flipped. In that case, what if you saw me say, "I got a 34 out of 40. That would make me intelligent. And a liberal, but there's no need to be redundant." Would you think that I'm being a reasonable person? Would you think I'm not trying to piss other people off? Don't be so clouded by your own biases.

Anarchists are at the far left end of the scale, sure... but the far, far left and far, far right look very similar in the way they end up operating. See: Facism vs Communism. Opposite ends of the scale... but identical in application.

Oh, and calling liberals 'zombies' is just idiotic. Uhh... you do the exact same thing I do on the opposite end. So you are a zombie too, if you think liberals are...

Also, I didn't mean that you say that you want no government... I meant that conservatives think that the government should do next to nothing... exactly like you said... since you hate them and don't trust them to do anything well.

He said if the scale was flipped. What are you, liberal or something? <--jk

Quote:Originally posted by Nintendarse
Weltall, listen to youself. The scale could have easily been flipped. In that case, what if you saw me say, "I got a 34 out of 40. That would make me intelligent. And a liberal, but there's no need to be redundant." Would you think that I'm being a reasonable person? Would you think I'm not trying to piss other people off? Don't be so clouded by your own biases.

I was going to say, in response, that Liberals have no sense of humor. Then I remembered that liberals created PETA, the ACLU and the reparations movement, so I figured they had to have a sense of humor. Then I remembered that liberals take these seriously and expect the same out of everyone.

So I'm confused. Do you have a sense of humor?

Ugh, all of this back-and-forth Liberal vs. Conservative talk is so damn annoying.

Quote:Well, for one thing, a 34 out of 40 would be mostly conservative. Try something more like "I got a 4 out of 40."

Yeah, next time try reading the post you are replying to? It'd help you make arguments that actually relate to what was said...

Weltall. PETA I'd say is a group that goes WAY WAY overboard... I mean, protesting the awful living conditions of farm animals is great (and accurate)... but they go too far. The ACLU, though... that is NOT just a liberal organization. Or do you forget that some pretty hardcore Republican conservatives are members... its nonpartizan.

Yes, I have a sense of humor, it's just that you have a record of thinly veiling your biases in humor.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Which means I should take the stick out of my ass! See! I can do it too!

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Yeah, next time try reading the post you are replying to? It'd help you make arguments that actually relate to what was said...

Weltall. PETA I'd say is a group that goes WAY WAY overboard... I mean, protesting the awful living conditions of farm animals is great (and accurate)... but they go too far. The ACLU, though... that is NOT just a liberal organization. Or do you forget that some pretty hardcore Republican conservatives are members... its nonpartizan.

If you think the ACLU is nonpartisan, you need to take a good look at what they usually fight.

The PETA are to high sniffing weed as they claim it is better then eating meat.

The PETA are to high puffing weed as they claim it is better then eating meat.

One thing I've learned about humor is that it's funny to everyone except for those who are being made fun of, with a few exceptions here and there. But hey, all of us should be able to laugh at ourselves every once in a while. Hell, I make fun of myself all the time just so no one else has to. Though oftentimes, they do anyway... :S

PETA isn't all bad. Observe:

Then, Weltall, why are conservatives members of it? Sure often it is liberals they end up defending. But not always... instead of just saying "no they don't" think... I know I've read articles saying how they get support from some conservatives because defending civil liberties defends some conservative positions as well as liberal ones.

Conservatives are the best in times of tension and war.

Liberals do well in times of peace.

Which is, of course, why Democrats were president during World War I, World War II, and Korea (as well for some of Vietnam, but that one was started by one Republican and finished by another), right?

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Which is, of course, why Democrats were president during World War I, World War II, and Korea (as well for some of Vietnam, but that one was started by one Republican and finished by another), right?

A point well made, though I'd have to say that Johnson is the main reason so many Americans lost their lives in Vietnam and Nixon should be credited for getting America out. But other than that, yes, we did have Democratic presidents during both World Wars as well as the Korean War. Of course, with events like the sinking of the Lusitania and the bombing of Pearl Harbor, who in their right mind, Democrat or Republican, wouldn't declare war?

Vietnam was started by Kennedy, fucked up majorly by Johnson, and resolved by Nixon. The biggest mistake in American history was most definitely not Republican.

No, Eisenhower started it by sending in the first advisors. Johnson, I'd admit, was the one who made it a big war (not Kennedy, really)... which is why he didn't get reelected or even run again -- he knew his Democratic base didn't like him at all...

In WW1 we did NOT declare war after the Lusitania sank... check your history. It was more than a year later. We declared war because of more, repeated US ships being sunk... including some government-owned ones. The real kicker was Germany's reopeining of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917... that got Wilson (who had just won the election partially on the platform "he kept us out of war") to declare war... because of the increased threat, but not from some obvious act like Pearl Harbor.

And the point isn't just that they were Democratic presidents but that they did a very good job... and got re-elected... in FDR's case, three times...

Yes, you're right, the Lusitania sank in 1916 and the US entered WWI in 1917. Forgive me for having a PE coach as a history teacher.

While Nixon should be commended for getting the United States out of Vietnam, it would be incomplete to forget that he secretly EXPANDED the war into Laos (which wasn't in the original war mandate) until he realized that the whole situaton was fruitless. In addition, the war dragged on well into his presidency. A lot of history is like this. Not even the most idealized presidents were perfect, because humans aren't perfect.

Yeah, if he'd REALLY had a "plan" to get out of Vietnam he'd have done it quickly and not taken years and years to finally decide to really pull out... its called a "campaign tactic" -- or 'lie' in normal speech. He did pull out in the end, but it took so long that he obviously had no intentions of doing so when he was promising he "had a plan".

Canada had a liberal Prime Minister during world war II, During The Boer War we had a liberal Prime Minister, a conservatice during world war I and a Liberal During the Korean war.
Good wartime leaders can belong to any political party, but it seems that conservatives have a tendancy to want to take military action before liberals do

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
Canada had a liberal Prime Minister during world war II, During The Boer War we had a liberal Prime Minister, a conservatice during world war I and a Liberal During the Korean war.
Good wartime leaders can belong to any political party, but it seems that conservatives have a tendancy to want to take military action before liberals do

If that's true, explain why every time America engaged itself in a major war in the 20th century, we were being led by a Democratic president.