Political Compass: On What Point of the Graph Do You Suck the Most?

adam.pohorecki.pl/.../2009/02/cartman-sweet.jpg

Alright! Full privileges!

Edit: nope. Still no ability to post pics.

Jagzeplin wrote:

adam.pohorecki.pl/.../2009/02/cartman-sweet.jpg

Alright! Full privileges!

Edit: nope. Still no ability to post pics.

Code's not correct in any case - try it again with the (img) (/img) codes around the address - replacing the parenthesese with brackets.

IMAGE(http://adam.pohorecki.pl/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cartman-sweet.jpg)

How about that

Edit: YES!!!!!!

Jagzeplin wrote:

To get back to what I was saying earlier, Cheese, I can name EIGHT people off the top of my head (my own mother included) who have found ways to cheat the system and get a government handout being lazy.

The fact that some people can game the system doesn't mean that other people don't use it legitimately, though.

jdzappa wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Would the right be willing to concede that the issue of abortion is intrinsically tied to public assistance for neonatal care and early childhood services?

I do agree with you that politicians on the right need to step up and offer pre-natal care and other help for women who are having crisis pregnancies. However, I think you would be suprised at the number of pro life individuals who donate to non-profits that provide these services.

I think the right needs to step up and concede that the issue of abortion is intrinsically tied to the idea of children's rights in general to be taken seriously. Instead of pro-life it should be pro-child.

Ranger Rick wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

Please tell me that you don't actually mean that the antibiotics alone could have cost $400 on top of the doctor's fees!

Believe it or not, I am. Antibiotics alone could easily cost that much. If we're talking about a a primary care doctor--in other words the doctor you go to first when you don't know what's wrong with you but you're not in need of the emergency room--the medicine will probably cost more than the doctor's fees.

Also, it can be deceptive that it's that high out of pocket just because of the nature of the way insurance companies negotiate their costs, because you get to be the one to help make up losses elsewhere.

Heh--don't worry, I know!

Jagzeplin wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

To me, those concepts seem so dated

Well I did say I'm old school.

I guess the thing I don't get is that the stuff that seems to bother antifederalists the most is the stuff that's jointly administered by the federal and state government anyway. It seems the only big change that would come with more state autonomy would be more state responsibility to pay their own bills and not rely on the flow of federal tax dollars across state lines.

In any case, for purposes of a political graph, I don't see a difference between being in favor of state government power or federal government power: it's all still government power. I think this more ties into something KingGorilla said a while back about the difference between an authoritarian ideology and an interventionist one.

Sort of the difference between wide and deep: you can have a country where there's government regulation of lots of things, but all kinds of checks and balances where state's rights could play a part. Then you can have a country where there's government regulation of few things, but there's no such thing as a warrant and the government can 'investigate' however it wishes.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I guess the thing I don't get is that the stuff that seems to bother antifederalists the most is the stuff that's jointly administered by the federal and state government anyway. It seems the only big change that would come with more state autonomy would be more state responsibility to pay their own bills and not rely on the flow of federal tax dollars across state lines.

In any case, for purposes of a political graph, I don't see a difference between being in favor of state government power or federal government power: it's all still government power. I think this more ties into something KingGorilla said a while back about the difference between an authoritarian ideology and an interventionist one.

Sort of the difference between wide and deep: you can have a country where there's government regulation of lots of things, but all kinds of checks and balances where state's rights could play a part. Then you can have a country where there's government regulation of few things, but there's no such thing as a warrant and the government can 'investigate' however it wishes.

Your right I do prefer less government power in general but in my experience individual states (lately at least) are usually not the ones who keep passing heavy-handed invasive laws like HR 5005 or whatever it was that allowed wiretapping and things of that nature.

I think the right needs to step up and concede that the issue of abortion is intrinsically tied to the idea of children's rights in general to be taken seriously. Instead of pro-life it should be pro-child.

This is a whole different issue that probably deserves its own thread. NPR is doing a series looking at how the EU credit crisis is affecting ordinary citizens around Western Europe. Today they interviewed several Norwegian, German, and French families about the discounted childcare they get in their societies. America really doesn't make it that easy to raise a child, at least compared to other first world countries. And don't get me started on the abysmal public education system.

jdzappa wrote:
I think the right needs to step up and concede that the issue of abortion is intrinsically tied to the idea of children's rights in general to be taken seriously. Instead of pro-life it should be pro-child.

This is a whole different issue that probably deserves its own thread. NPR is doing a series looking at how the EU credit crisis is affecting ordinary citizens around Western Europe. Today they interviewed several Norwegian, German, and French families about the discounted childcare they get in their societies. America really doesn't make it that easy to raise a child, at least compared to other first world countries. And don't get me started on the abysmal public education system.

Not so much talking about raising kids or education, more about the general attitude towards children and their rights. It's hard to take the right wing seriously on abortion given their attitude towards children as individuals.

I think a critical downturn in education occurred with the passing of "no child left behind" mandates and our "democratizing" education in general in an attempt for it to be everything to everyone. The cold fact of life is that not all children are born with the same abilities and lately our schools have really dumbed down its requirements in order to raise graduation percentages. Have you ever read an 8th grade book report from the 50's and compared it to one today? Chances are you would be amazed at how mentally lazy kids (and adults) are in our society today.

Paleocon wrote:

It's bizarre to think that the quintessential Republican's Republican (Dwight D Eisenhower) would be shouted down as a Communist in this day in age, but he absolutely would. Hell, he'd be Swift Boated the moment he opened his mouth.

It's not like "republican" and "democrat" haven't flipped ideals in the past - in fact, I think they have more than once. Like two moving dots on an ideology circle.

Shoal07 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It's bizarre to think that the quintessential Republican's Republican (Dwight D Eisenhower) would be shouted down as a Communist in this day in age, but he absolutely would. Hell, he'd be Swift Boated the moment he opened his mouth.

It's not like "republican" and "democrat" haven't flipped ideals in the past - in fact, I think they have more than once. Like two moving dots on an ideology circle.

Your right. During the civil war era republicans were considered liberal and democrats the stalwart conservatives.

Shoal07 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It's bizarre to think that the quintessential Republican's Republican (Dwight D Eisenhower) would be shouted down as a Communist in this day in age, but he absolutely would. Hell, he'd be Swift Boated the moment he opened his mouth.

It's not like "republican" and "democrat" haven't flipped ideals in the past - in fact, I think they have more than once. Like two moving dots on an ideology circle.

I think the difference here is that the Republicans and Democrats haven't switch places per se. As Bill Maher put it "The Left has gone Right and the Right has gone crazy".

Paleocon wrote:

I think the difference here is that the Republicans and Democrats haven't switch places per se. As Bill Maher put it "The Left has gone Right and the Right has gone crazy".

WERE NOT CRAZY! YOU'RE ALL CRAZY! What with all your silly prattle about the world being round. HA!

Jagzeplin wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It's bizarre to think that the quintessential Republican's Republican (Dwight D Eisenhower) would be shouted down as a Communist in this day in age, but he absolutely would. Hell, he'd be Swift Boated the moment he opened his mouth.

It's not like "republican" and "democrat" haven't flipped ideals in the past - in fact, I think they have more than once. Like two moving dots on an ideology circle.

Your right. During the civil war era republicans were considered liberal and democrats the stalwart conservatives.

Heh--during the Civil War the republicans were liberal and the democrats were everyone else. Don't even know how you'd categorize something like Tammany Hall in those days on a liberal/conservative scale.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Jagzeplin wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It's bizarre to think that the quintessential Republican's Republican (Dwight D Eisenhower) would be shouted down as a Communist in this day in age, but he absolutely would. Hell, he'd be Swift Boated the moment he opened his mouth.

It's not like "republican" and "democrat" haven't flipped ideals in the past - in fact, I think they have more than once. Like two moving dots on an ideology circle.

Your right. During the civil war era republicans were considered liberal and democrats the stalwart conservatives.

Heh--during the Civil War the republicans were liberal and the democrats were everyone else. Don't even know how you'd categorize something like Tammany Hall in those days on a liberal/conservative scale.

Kleptocratic

This reminds me of the Simpsons episode : Treehouse of Horror VII : Citizen Kang .

Tanglebones wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Jagzeplin wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It's bizarre to think that the quintessential Republican's Republican (Dwight D Eisenhower) would be shouted down as a Communist in this day in age, but he absolutely would. Hell, he'd be Swift Boated the moment he opened his mouth.

It's not like "republican" and "democrat" haven't flipped ideals in the past - in fact, I think they have more than once. Like two moving dots on an ideology circle.

Your right. During the civil war era republicans were considered liberal and democrats the stalwart conservatives.

Heh--during the Civil War the republicans were liberal and the democrats were everyone else. Don't even know how you'd categorize something like Tammany Hall in those days on a liberal/conservative scale.

Kleptocratic :P

There's plenty of Tammany Hall antics going on today I'm sure. Too bad the media is focused on Mel Gibson and Lindsey Lohan.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...

Not alot of authoritarians in the GWJ community I see. No wonder this place is a hive of scum and villany, there's no one watching the front door!!

IMAGE(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.88&soc=-0.26)

Hmm...

IMAGE(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.38&soc=-2.62)

Looks about right to me.

IMAGE(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.88&soc=-3.79)
Like others have said: about what I expected, though some questions were decidedly off.