Political Compass

[The_Meach]

What specific policies of the Bush administration would you characterize as impractical and irrational?

[Master]

We desparately need a politics board (and a videogame discount board that also doubles as a "haul" board).

[g0zen]

What specific policies of the Bush administration would you characterize as impractical and irrational?

Pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty and putting a fucking CORPORATE AMERICA WHORE as head of the EPA. Then of course there's wanting to fuck ANWAR for a relative pittance of petroleum.

Need more? Because I can just go on and on...

[NightWolve]

I said that because I see Bush as excessively nationalistic. Not because I'm calling him the next Hitler.

Just checking .

If you've got me pegged as a flag burning liberal then there's not much I can say to help that for you.

Nah, neither a US flag-burning liberal, nor a Confederate flag-waving Southerner ^_^. But, I went with just plain old left-of-center liberal.

Bush seems to have good inital motives but the exceution and the path he takes towards these things are irrational and often... extravagant? Certianly misguided in my opinion. He lacks the practicallity I have long associated with the Republican Party and indeed with any rational ruler. Heck, Texans stereotypically pride themselves on being 'pragmatic,' and placeing 'common-sence' above all else. Times they are a changein'.

Yeah, I like the Texan-style approach myself. Extravagant? Hehe. I guess... Fair criticism though. I'd say the domestic spending practices are irrational (although there's a tango with Congress on that), plus the "I promise to never veto a bill" deal. He's losing me on some things domestically, but I don't see a better choice for my tastes. If there was though, it'd have to come from the republican party.

[icarusfall]

-8.25
-4.12

[The_Meach]

Pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty and putting a fucking CORPORATE AMERICA WHORE as head of the EPA. Then of course there's wanting to fuck ANWAR for a relative pittance of petroleum.

Need more? Because I can just go on and on...

Opposition to Kyoto is nothing if not practical. The shackles that would be placed around our economy's neck would hinder growth for years. Now, it would certainly make us feel better about the environment. Whether it would actually help the environment in proportion to how much it would cripple our economy is up for debate. But as far as economic policy is concerned, Kyoto is a joke.

The footprint that would be created in ANWAR would be +/- 30 sq miles. Do you know how many sq. miles are in the Alaskan National Wildlife Animal Reserve?

Not to mention that drilling practices are safer, cleaner and more efficient than they've ever been. One could argue (as you do) that ANWAR will not solve our energy problems for perpetuity. That's a very poor reason to forbid drilling. 'Gee, we can't get ALL the milk we'll ever need at Safeway today. Better hold off.'

I remain unconvinced Bush's policies are impractical/irrational. Certainly drilling in ANWAR is practical. Irrational? How so? And why would it be considered irrational to want to preserve economic growth instead of implementing a vauge, ill-defined treaty such as Kyoto?

[g0zen]

Opposition to Kyoto is nothing if not practical. The shackles that would be placed around our economy's neck would hinder growth for years. Now, it would certainly make us feel better about the environment. Whether it would actually help the environment in proportion to how much it would cripple our economy is up for debate. But as far as economic policy is concerned, Kyoto is a joke.

The footprint that would be created in ANWAR would be +/- 30 sq miles. Do you know how many sq. miles are in the Alaskan National Wildlife Animal Reserve?

Not to mention that drilling practices are safer, cleaner and more efficient than they've ever been. One could argue (as you do) that ANWAR will not solve our energy problems for perpetuity. That's a very poor reason to forbid drilling. 'Gee, we can't get ALL the milk we'll ever need at Safeway today. Better hold off.'

I remain unconvinced Bush's policies are impractical/irrational. Certainly drilling in ANWAR is practical. Irrational? How so? And why would it be considered irrational to want to preserve economic growth instead of implementing a vauge, ill-defined treaty such as Kyoto?

Alright, stop spouting the right-wing party line and go do some research.

In the meantime, let me debunk your web of shit.

First, Kyoto is not some 'vague, ill-defined treaty' designed to kill American industry. It is a sobering realization by the international community that we must take steps to stop global warming. It finally holds industrialized nations accountable for their insane levels of greenhouse gases. Is it asking them to become completely clean? Of course not, unfortunately something like that is relatively impossible. As it stands the UN is only asking that the member nations lower their emissions 5-fucking-% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. True, that's really not much, but it's a helluva lot better than just letting the emissions pile up without ANY regulation.

As for it putting 'shackles' around the neck of the economy; Well, I'm sorry if keeping the fucking planet livable is making it harder for fortune 500 assholes to buy their 15th yacht, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Of course, it's a laughable economic policy, IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO MAKE YOU MONEY, IT'S DESIGNED TO SAVE THE GODDAMN EARTH!

ANWAR is a wildlife reserve, it's not in the middle of the ocean or in some dirt patch in Texas. Any tampering with the ecosystem could cause harm that would be potentially irreversable. If you knew fuckall about ecology you'd know this already, but since you're obviously getting your enviromental info from the Shell Answer Man I can see why your perceptions on the issue are so tragically skewed. Besides, their most optimistic predictions on how much oil is beneath ANWAR don't even amount to what the U.S. uses in a week. The infinitesimal pros do NOT outweigh the cons in this case.

Bush has made clear he has no other goals during his administration than to french kiss corporate America's rectum. Every executive decision he has made ALWAYS has the underlining effect of benefiting the rich, further remming the middle-class, and completely dismissing the poor.

[The_Meach]

Mmmm...hyperbole masquerading as considered argument...*mouth waters*

J/k dood. Calm down, man! Your platitudes have yet to convince me.

[g0zen]

Mmmm...hyperbole masquerading as considered argument...*mouth waters*

J/k dood. Calm down, man! Your platitudes have yet to convince me.

Face it, I just pwned j00.

[frostwolf ex]

Face it, I just pwned j00.

not even remotely, 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.

anywho, i was looking back, and it seems that gohron and i both made the same mistake of assuming the first drawing with the 2 lines represented our own standings, turns out my actual standing was so imperceptably close to (0,0) that i thought it was just a red indicator of it. Generally i do consider myself more conservative than this quiz showed, but i can see how it came down to that as i usually attempt to at least understand the side that i dont agree with. it is funny that veggie was somuch more high on the scale than i was given how much we generally agree, but, so be it, diff and i are the moderates on this board..who knew (but im more moderate )