Political Compass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icepick

With Jesus nailed to it... you bible thumping ass bandit.

---

That has got to be the best flame I've ever heard.

*polysci flashback*

Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

That's about what I expected. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sggg

*polysci flashback*

Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

That's about what I expected. :)

---

You haven't posted there yet, but I won't be surprised in the slightest at what you'll say in the 'Ideal Society" thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sggg

*polysci flashback*

Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

That's about what I expected. :)

---

Commie!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

You haven't posted there yet, but I won't be surprised in the slightest at what you'll say in the 'Ideal Society" thread.

---

Heh, yeh.. I guess my score could pretty much speak for itself in both threads. You saved me having to read through that entire thread. Cheers. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sggg

Heh, yeh.. I guess my score could pretty much speak for itself in both threads. You saved me having to read through that entire thread. Cheers. ;)

---

You would have posted exactly what I would have, albeit more eloquently, sans guns and boom!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

if anything you just made yourself look really bad with the rhetoric. Most will now just lump you as a radical left and ignore you because you use way too much emotional and insulting language, debate calmly and rationally or face the consequences of making your position look stupid.

---

This is why I like this forum. The (political) flaming isn't out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Pushing forward on a ballistic missle defence

---

Good catch. One could make a good argument that SDI is impractical. You've made pretty good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Bush is awfully big government for a Republican.

---

Yet more proof of Bush being impractical. Large gov't programs are inherently impractical and inefficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Also, his handleing of many forigen, er, excersices have not been very cost effective or in the general interest of the people who elected him - rather, it is in the percived best interests of other peoples with a signifigant disgreguard to various other peoples desent. That also stinks of "STFU, we're in charge here."

---

I'm not clear on what you're arguing here. Are you saying Bush has not been acting on the behalf of Americans? Or are you saying he's only implementing policies that benefit select individuals/campaign contributors? Or are you saying that his foreign policies have helped foreigners (Iraqis, Afghans, etc) but NOT Americans?

You assert Bush's foreign policies have been inefficient from an economic standpoint. One could argue foreign policies should primarily be judged on how they enhance American prestige/security and not on how they impact the bottom line.

All told, good answers to my question "What specific policies of the Bush administration would you characterize as impractical and irrational."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

I think it's unfair to say nothing in my post had relevance

---

It's not that it had no relevance. It's that by getting mad and going off I've no way of responding to you. Tracer and I disagree about (some things about) Bush, it's just that he presented his argument in a way in which I could respond. It's hard to engage on an issue if the dialogue consists of "OMGSTFU!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Instead of letting The Meach trivialize Kyoto I laid out some of what it was proposing and why pulling out of it was more strictly a partisan decision and not one done in the best interest of all Americans.

---

I'm not sure conservatives oppose Kyoto on partisan grounds. The term partisan, when used in politics, refers to blindly taking a position solely for political gain. I haven't seen that Republicans are gaining any political advantage. If anything, they leave themselves open to the (continued) charge that they're heartless bastards that want to torch the planet. This is why I argue that conservatives oppose Kyoto b/c they think it is bad public policy (they believe it will cripple our economy and hurt the economic well-being of all Americans).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

the local (ANWAR) ecology shouldn't be exposed to the myriad of disturbances made by oil drilling both directly and indirectly.

---

I think this is a good point. If drilling in ANWAR condemns the most pristine nature preserve in N America to a sea of oil wells (though that would be a HECK of a lot of oil ;) ), we should probably think twice. But drilling in ANWAR wouldn't do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

The Meach wasn't making an original argument, he simply regurgitated the same tired disingenuous propaganda...

---

I'm sure we can both agree that regurgitating 'the same tired disingenuous proganda' is never a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

...shoveled our way by a corporate system that sees profits instead of people and resources instead of a planet.

---

:lol: j/k!

Anyways. I think it's a good idea to make the most of our natural resources and manage our planet responsibly. However well-intentioned Kyoto is, I don't happen to think the Treaty does that, and compliance (or the lack thereof) by signatories doesn't do anything to reassure me it would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Yet more proof of Bush being impractical. Large gov't programs are inherently impractical and inefficient.

---

Not necessarily true. See Allyson Pollock et al., "Public Services and the Private Sector" (http://www.catalystforum.org.uk/pdf/paper1.pdf)

Consider: Canada has a larger health care program than the states, but it only spends 9.7% (of its GDP) -- +/-2% less than in the US (over 11%). (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf). The jump in Canadian Health Care Expenditures as a precentage of GDP occured during the 90s when we tried to reduce the size of the health care system and adopt American strategies (such as Private Public Partnerships). In 1980 Health Expenditures in Canada were 7.1 as a percentage of GDP. The smaller American system is inefficient, countless studies proof of this. See Paul Pierson, "Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment" (Cambridge University Press, 1996,) pp. 132. Also, see Pat Armstrong et al., "Heal Thyself: Managing Health Care Reform" Garamond Press, 2000) Chapter 3. There is a big difference between the American system and the government run one; regardless of the policy area, the publicly run, larger systems are ALWAYS more effective.