Take The Political Matrix Test

[TexanBob]

http://goldengiven.net/polimatrix/thetest.php

Judging from the spelling, this political test was not written by an American but it gives a graph of where you stand on the political spectrum:

Mine says:

"Economic score: +1.68
Social score: +4.7

Your score pegs you as economically centre-capitalist and socially moderately authoritarian.

Centre-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.

Moderate social authoritarians typically support social controls meant to encourage moral behaviour and an organised society, although they may have some moderate or libertarian positions."

[Spider]

Economic score: -3.87
Social score: -2.26

Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially centre-libertarian.

Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.

Social centre-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society.
http://goldengiven.net/polimatrix/images.gif

[Dudeskey]

Economic score: -2.32
Social score: -5.22
Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially libertarian.
Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.
Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[gunns]

Economic score: -0.77
Social score: -3.13

Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially moderately libertarian.

Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.

Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

Now I don't understand that last part. I voted for legalization of marijuana. :kiddingme:

[Rigs11]

Economic score: -3.48
Social score: -3.65

Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially moderately libertarian.

Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.

Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[TexanBob]

Now I don't understand that last part. I voted for legalization of marijuana. :kiddingme:

That wasn't the only question about legalization/criminalization. There were also questions about prostitution, flag burning, etc.

[W*GS]

Economic score: +9.35
Social score: -10.00

Your score pegs you as economically extremely capitalist and socially far-leftist.

Extreme capitalists generally believe that the free market should be unregulated and laissez-faire in nature, with government either only intervening in extreme cases or never intervening at all. They also believe in significant reductions of government services. Many extreme capitalists believe that it is not the government's responsibility to assure welfare for the poor, but rather that the poor should fend for themselves or receive welfare through some form of private charity.

Social far-leftists generally believe that the government has no business enforcing morality on most matters, instead favouring a government that intervenes only when absolutely necessary to avoid direct harm. Many social far-leftists also look negatively on the government's past attitudes toward groups they view as persecuted, although some simply oppose government intervention on utilitarianist grounds.

[W*GS]

TexanBob, see

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1839148&postcount=245

[TexanBob]

TexanBob, see

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1839148&postcount=245

Well, plot me near defenseman and Crushaholic but that seems way off base since I'm practically in the circle with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so either I'm not politically where I think I am or they are seriously mistaken about where most of the leaders of the Democrat party are.

A major difference between that poll and the one at the top of this thread is that the one you cite gives you no room for "neutral" or essentially "don't care".

All of these quizzes, of course, contain the subtle biases of their designers and I found myself disagreeing with the way some of the questions in both tests were phrased. As pollsters know, the way you phrase the question is critical to the honesty of the answers you'll get.

[Pseudofool]

Economic score: -5.81
Social score: -5.04

Your score pegs you as economically leftist and socially libertarian.

Economic leftists mostly support strict economic controls and programs to assure that the poor are elevated to a higher position in society.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[SoCalBronco]

Economic score: +2.06
Social score: +1.04

Your score pegs you as economically centre-capitalist and socially centre-authoritarian.

Centre-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.

Social centre-authoritarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward government intervention. They may have moderate cultural and religious views, but on the whole believe that the government should assure that society should stay moral.

[W*GS]

Looks like I get to build another database and make some pictures...

[BABronco]

Economic score: +3.1
Social score: -4.00

Your score pegs you as economically moderately capitalist and socially moderately libertarian.

Moderate capitalists usually support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances according to what they believe will be best for business and workers.

Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[sisterhellfyre]

Economic score: -1.03
Social score: -5.04

Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially libertarian.

Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[Pseudofool]

Looks like I get to build another database and make some pictures...
Sure you want to; this paints you pretty extreme, don't you think?

The problem with these kind of "tests" or "charts" is 1) they are often based on hot-button media-saturated issues, and 2) the difference between "Strongly" and "Normally" differs for each person.

I think the more general and abstract the questions are, or rather if we were given particular scenarios of which to moralize our beliefs the better off the test would be...but it still would be utter horse crap.

[cutthemdown]

Economic score: +0.06
Social score: -0.09
Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially centrist.
Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.
Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.


like usual right in the middle and I answer very honestly.

[Pseudofool]

Economic score: +0.06
Social score: -0.09
Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially centrist.
Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.
Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.


like usual right in the middle and I answer very honestly.What issues make you socially conservative as opposed to liberal? Usually people fall pretty extreme one way or the other. Is it the terrorism/civil rights debate?

[cutthemdown]

Probably answering Patriot Act not a civil rights violation and that gay couples shouldn't get same benefits as straight ones when they marry.

Then I guess because I am for drug legalization that pulls me to the centrist position overall. That and I am pro-choice.

Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.

I'd say this sums my thinking up pretty well. I don't see things as right or wrong, or left or right really. I look at it as what I feel is best for the country in the long run.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Changing just a couple answer from agree or disagree to "strongly" and checking the box for "very imoportant" can change your score quite a bit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6931/clipboard01mi2.jpg

[Pseudofool]

Probably answering Patriot Act not a civil rights violation and that gay couples shouldn't get same benefits as straight ones when they marry.

Then I guess because I am for drug legalization that pulls me to the centrist position overall. That and I am pro-choice.

Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.

I'd say this sums my thinking up pretty well. I don't see things as right or wrong, or left or right really. I look at it as what I feel is best for the country in the long run.Don't take this as offensive, just trying to understand. What problem do you have with gay people marrying? Do you have a religious doctrine that forbids it or something?

Again, not to poke you, but you've said some pretty extreme things about Muslim Americans, but do you know many Gay or Lesbian Americans over thirty. From my experience they are pretty normal, even banal...especially more so than the weird guy selling scrap metal down the street waiving the confederate flag anyways.

[Dudeskey]

Well, plot me near defenseman and Crushaholic but that seems way off base since I'm practically in the circle with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so either I'm not politically where I think I am or they are seriously mistaken about where most of the leaders of the Democrat party are.


I think it points out the fact that most of the prominent Democrats are not as far to the left as most pundits perceive them to be....™

[Garcia Bronco]

Economic score: +5.42
Social score: -0.7

Your score pegs you as economically capitalist and socially centrist.

Capitalists generally support an open free market and lower taxes, but also support government restrictions on blatantly abusive industry. Capitalists also often differ from their more extreme peers in that, while they may support significantly lower taxes, they are less apt to support complete elimination of taxation or near-complete elimination of government.

Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.

[Hotrod]

Economic score: +2.06
Social score: +2.09

Your score pegs you as economically centre-capitalist and socially centre-authoritarian.

Centre-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.

Social centre-authoritarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward government intervention. They may have moderate cultural and religious views, but on the whole believe that the government should assure that society should stay moral.

[tsiguy96]

Economic score: -0.26
Social score: -4.35
Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially moderately libertarian.
Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.
Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[Beantown Bronco]

Economic score: +1.16
Social score: -5.04

Your score pegs you as economically centre-capitalist and socially libertarian.

Centre-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[Rohirrim]

Economic score: +4.9
Social score: +6.61

Your score pegs you as economically moderately capitalist and socially authoritarian.

Moderate capitalists usually support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances according to what they believe will be best for business and workers.

Social authoritarians generally believe that the country is moving toward immorality and that the government should assure it does not. Social authoritarians oftentimes believe that the government should be operated in a religious context, or at least with heavy consideration of moral values.

Wow! Who'd a thunk it? ;D

[Tombstone RJ]

Economic score: +3.74
Social score: -1.74

Your score pegs you as economically moderately capitalist and socially centre-libertarian.

Moderate capitalists usually support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances according to what they believe will be best for business and workers.

Social centre-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society.

[Tombstone RJ]

This poll is kinda confusing and non representational in that, there are several levels of government. If this poll is talking about Federal government involvement, than I'm against almost anything from the Federal government when it comes to dictating anything social or economical.

I think the Fed gov needs to shrink, not grow. Also, I think the states should be allowed to decide how they want to grow (drilling off shore, for example).

[orangeatheist]

Economic score: +3.87
Social score: -1.39

Your score pegs you as economically moderately capitalist and socially centre-libertarian.

Moderate capitalists usually support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances according to what they believe will be best for business and workers.

Social centre-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society.

[Arkie]

Economic score: +4.65
Social score: -2.78

Your score pegs you as economically moderately capitalist and socially centre-libertarian.

Moderate capitalists usually support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances according to what they believe will be best for business and workers.

Social centre-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society.

[Traveler]

Economic score: -5.94
Social score: -5.74

Your score pegs you as economically leftist and socially libertarian.

Economic leftists mostly support strict economic controls and programs to assure that the poor are elevated to a higher position in society.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

Oh the horror! :kiddingme

[TexanBob]

Economic score: +0.06
Social score: -0.09
Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially centrist.
Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.
Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.


like usual right in the middle and I answer very honestly.

I notcied this on the other questionaire thread too.

[Maximus]

Economic score: -4.26
Social score: -0.87

Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially centrist.

Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.

Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.

[TailgateNut]

Economic score: -2.58
Social score: -1.91

Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially centre-libertarian.

Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.

Social centre-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society

[alkemical]

Economic score: +1.03
Social score: -5.22

Your score pegs you as economically centre-capitalist and socially libertarian.

Centre-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[kappys]

Economic score: -3.48
Social score: -4.17

Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially moderately libertarian.

Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.

Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[BroncoInferno]

Economic score: -1.16
Social score: -8.52

Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially far-leftist.

Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.

Social far-leftists generally believe that the government has no business enforcing morality on most matters, instead favouring a government that intervenes only when absolutely necessary to avoid direct harm. Many social far-leftists also look negatively on the government's past attitudes toward groups they view as persecuted, although some simply oppose government intervention on utilitarianist grounds.

[Garcia Bronco]

All these numbers confirm to me what I already knew about all of you.


You are all a bunch of whack jobs.

[ElwayMD]

Economic score: +5.68
Social score: +2.26

Your score pegs you as economically capitalist and socially centre-authoritarian.

Capitalists generally support an open free market and lower taxes, but also support government restrictions on blatantly abusive industry. Capitalists also often differ from their more extreme peers in that, while they may support significantly lower taxes, they are less apt to support complete elimination of taxation or near-complete elimination of government.

Social centre-authoritarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward government intervention. They may have moderate cultural and religious views, but on the whole believe that the government should assure that society should stay moral.

[elsid13]

Economic score: +0.65
Social score: -0.17
Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially centrist.

Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.

Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.

[frerottenextelway]

Economic score: -3.23
Social score: -5.04

Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially libertarian.

[BroncoBuff]

Result

Economic score: -2.06
Social score: -5.91
Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially libertarian.
Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.
Aren't the red quotes contradictory?

[Denver Crush]

Economic score: -1.03
Social score: -6.43

Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially libertarian.

Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[Hogan11]

Economic score: -0.13
Social score: -5.39

Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially libertarian.

Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[frerottenextelway]

Result

Economic score: -2.06
Social score: -5.91
Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially libertarian.
Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.
Aren't the red quotes contradictory?

No, it means you support fair trade. An example would be the recent NAFTA talk, where if we're going to trade with Mexico we demand those goods be quality tested, made in plants that meat our enviro standards, and not made in sweatshops (so Mexico doesn't get an unfair advantage).

Basically, it says you support Barack Obama's position on trade.

[cutthemdown]

Don't take this as offensive, just trying to understand. What problem do you have with gay people marrying? Do you have a religious doctrine that forbids it or something?

Again, not to poke you, but you've said some pretty extreme things about Muslim Americans, but do you know many Gay or Lesbian Americans over thirty. From my experience they are pretty normal, even banal...especially more so than the weird guy selling scrap metal down the street waiving the confederate flag anyways.

I don't have a problem with them marrying. The question asked if I thought they should get the same benefits from marriage and I don't think they should.

As a moral issue I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I do feel however that population growth and health are not helped by gay people. They don't have children. For that reason I don't feel they should get any special treatment over single people. They shouldn't be able to pass on social security, get insurance, apply for loans as a couple IMO.

I live in a city with a big gay population and I know them to be good Americans. I don't think they need to be fixed or cured, I just also don't feel they help society stay young and vibrant by creating offspring, for that reason mostly I feel the way i do.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There's not much difference between this test and the political compass test.

Economic score: -6.45
Social score: -4.35

Your score pegs you as economically leftist and socially moderately libertarian.

Economic leftists mostly support strict economic controls and programs to assure that the poor are elevated to a higher position in society.

Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I do feel however that population growth and health are not helped by gay people. They don't have children.

That's a pretty good argument that gays do help with population growth problems when you consider that the planet is already overpopulated to the point that Earth is nearing its carrying capacity.

[Pseudofool]

I don't have a problem with them marrying. The question asked if I thought they should get the same benefits from marriage and I don't think they should.

As a moral issue I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I do feel however that population growth and health are not helped by gay people. They don't have children. For that reason I don't feel they should get any special treatment over single people. They shouldn't be able to pass on social security, get insurance, apply for loans as a couple IMO.

I live in a city with a big gay population and I know them to be good Americans. I don't think they need to be fixed or cured, I just also don't feel they help society stay young and vibrant by creating offspring, for that reason mostly I feel the way i do.Thanks for answering; but you don't think overpopulation is problem? And don't you think that gay couples getting large loans and using that money is good for the economy? I mean that's more house sales, more cars being bought, etc. Also, gay couple do adopt--which if you watched ABCs This Week with George Stephenophelogus interview with McCain, children do indeed go unadopted...

[That One Guy]

I got positive numbers, I win!

Economic score: +0.52
Social score: +2.78
Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially centre-authoritarian.
Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.
Social centre-authoritarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward government intervention. They may have moderate cultural and religious views, but on the whole believe that the government should assure that society should stay moral.

[That One Guy]

Thanks for answering; but you don't think overpopulation is problem? And don't you think that gay couples getting large loans and using that money is good for the economy? I mean that's more house sales, more cars being bought, etc. Also, gay couple do adopt--which if you watched ABCs This Week with George Stephenophelogus interview with McCain, children do indeed go unadopted...

Bah, they'd spend their money just the same whether they were "married" or not. Society these days basically accepts homosexuals without excessive ridicule (plenty of jokes, but not in an attempt to degrade) and they should enjoy that they can finally live in relative happyness. Marriage started out as a religious ceremony. If the churches wont recognize their "union", why do they want their ceremony? If they'd back off the word "marriage", I think you'd see a lot of opinions relaxed and more willing to compromise.

[socalorado]

Economic score: +2.06
Social score: +1.04

Your score pegs you as economically centre-capitalist and socially centre-authoritarian.

Centre-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.

Social centre-authoritarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward government intervention. They may have moderate cultural and religious views, but on the whole believe that the government should assure that society should stay moral.

Huh. Almost the same.


Economic score: +3.35
Social score: +2.96

Your score pegs you as economically moderately capitalist and socially centre-authoritarian.

Moderate capitalists usually support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances according to what they believe will be best for business and workers.

Social centre-authoritarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward government intervention. They may have moderate cultural and religious views, but on the whole believe that the government should assure that society should stay moral.

[Pseudofool]

Bah, they'd spend their money just the same whether they were "married" or not. Society these days basically accepts homosexuals without excessive ridicule (plenty of jokes, but not in an attempt to degrade) and they should enjoy that they can finally live in relative happyness. Marriage started out as a religious ceremony. If the churches wont recognize their "union", why do they want their ceremony? If they'd back off the word "marriage", I think you'd see a lot of opinions relaxed and more willing to compromise.I think it's easier for two people legally joined to qualify for large amounts of loans; but maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah, you're totally right, the gays should be glad they aren't beaten death to on street by Frat boys as frequently. You're argument so totally failed and is steeped in the insipid kind of hatred that no religion or moral person ought to tolerate--this was the same argument used against suffrage, civil rights, etc.

[That One Guy]

I think it's easier for two people legally joined to qualify for large amounts of loans; but maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah, you're totally right, the gays should be glad they aren't beaten death to on street by Frat boys as frequently. You're argument so totally failed and is steeped in the insipid kind of hatred that no religion or moral person ought to tolerate--this was the same argument used against suffrage, civil rights, etc.

Now that you mention it, I'm glad I didn't get beat to death in the streets today. Sometimes in life, we take things for granted.

Go rehash a gay marriage thread if you want to get fussy and I'll meet ya there, don't jack their scores thread. I'm sure there's a truckload of those threads around that you can bring back.

[Taco John]

Not a big suprise...


Economic score: +5.55
Social score: -4.35
Your score pegs you as economically capitalist and socially moderately libertarian.
Capitalists generally support an open free market and lower taxes, but also support government restrictions on blatantly abusive industry. Capitalists also often differ from their more extreme peers in that, while they may support significantly lower taxes, they are less apt to support complete elimination of taxation or near-complete elimination of government.
Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[cutthemdown]

Thanks for answering; but you don't think overpopulation is problem? And don't you think that gay couples getting large loans and using that money is good for the economy? I mean that's more house sales, more cars being bought, etc. Also, gay couple do adopt--which if you watched ABCs This Week with George Stephenophelogus interview with McCain, children do indeed go unadopted...

Your welcome.
No.
Yes, But gay people will spend money either way.
I don't think gay couples should be able to adopt.

[Pseudofool]

Yes, But gay people will spend money either way.I won't quibble with you over the other issues, and I'll try to keep it to a minimum. But my point is that gay people individually might spend the money they have or the loans they could get, but as a legal couple the could qualify for larger sums of money and thus spend larger sums of money (be it on houses, cars, equity, etc.). There is an economic reason to support legally bound gay couples (who cares if you call it marriage or civil union--I don't, but they might), as well as moral ones.

[cutthemdown]

Now that you mention it, I'm glad I didn't get beat to death in the streets today. Sometimes in life, we take things for granted.

Go rehash a gay marriage thread if you want to get fussy and I'll meet ya there, don't jack their scores thread. I'm sure there's a truckload of those threads around that you can bring back.

Those issues were raised in this thread by being part of the questions they asked to determine the score. I'd say that makes any of those issues fair game in this thread.

[baja]

<b>Poorly constructed poll but I played anyway...</b>



Economic score: -1.42
Social score: -4.35

Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially moderately libertarian.

Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.

Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[That One Guy]

Those issues were raised in this thread by being part of the questions they asked to determine the score. I'd say that makes any of those issues fair game in this thread.

Sure, that's why I didn't mind commenting on the topic but when he wants to start getting dramatic and completely leave the Matrix test-Gay marriage connection and head strictly down the gay marriage road, then the thread is being hijacked. Making comments about frat boys killing gays in the streets is reserved for gay marriage threads, commenting on the impact of gay marriage on the economy, that definitely fits within a thread involving economic views.

It just takes each of us taking a baby step off the topic, I took one and then he took one and I didn't want to keep stepping that way and get too far off the path.

[That One Guy]

I won't quibble with you over the other issues, and I'll try to keep it to a minimum. But my point is that gay people individually might spend the money they have or the loans they could get, but as a legal couple the could qualify for larger sums of money and thus spend larger sums of money (be it on houses, cars, equity, etc.). There is an economic reason to support legally bound gay couples (who cares if you call it marriage or civil union--I don't, but they might), as well as moral ones.

So you're saying that if we let gay people "unionize" then they'll spend more money than they have... yeah, we need more of that. I'm perfectly content with folks these days only spending the money they have and not running up more debt, gay or not. Buying big ticket items does no more for the economy than spending that same money on a variety of small items.

[alkemical]

what's the big fricken deal about gay people having the same "Rights" as a heterosexual couple?

Seriously? If two people care and love each other, good for them. Really, when you say they don't DESERVE the same rights and privileges - you have already classified homosexuals as a lesser class of person.

[baja]

what's the big fricken deal about gay people having the same "Rights" as a heterosexual couple?

Seriously? If two people care and love each other, good for them. Really, when you say they don't DESERVE the same rights and privileges - you have already classified homosexuals as a lesser class of person.

Shut up Fag....

[alkemical]

Shut up Fag....

you wish! lol

[baja]

Don't talk to me that way sweet heart ;D

[alkemical]

Don't talk to me that way sweet heart ;D

Not here.... wait till later :pimp:

[Tombstone RJ]

The Federal government has no right to dictate who can be married and who can't. Again, this is an abuse of power by the Feds.

The Federal government should simply leave it up to the individual states to either recognize or not recognize homosexual marriage.

The only thing that the Federal government should do is write one, simple peace of legislation that goes something like this:

"All states have the right to either recognize or not recognize the legal union (marriage) of two willing individual, and adult homosapiens."

Simple, and to the point. This would eliminate abuse by individuals who want to have multiple wives, or the fringe loonies who want to marry their favorite pet horse.

Otherwise, the Federal government should stay the hell out of the way and let people decide for themselves who they can marry.

[ScottXray]

Economic score: -1.94
Social score: -3.3

Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially moderately libertarian.

Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.

Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[Bob]

I think this one was a tad better than the last one we took.

Economic score: +1.94
Social score: +4.35

Your score pegs you as economically centre-capitalist and socially moderately authoritarian.

Centre-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.

Moderate social authoritarians typically support social controls meant to encourage moral behaviour and an organised society, although they may have some moderate or libertarian positions.

[cutthemdown]

what's the big fricken deal about gay people having the same "Rights" as a heterosexual couple?

Seriously? If two people care and love each other, good for them. Really, when you say they don't DESERVE the same rights and privileges - you have already classified homosexuals as a lesser class of person.

why not just get rid of any benefits and penalties of being married. That way people who choose to be single can compete. People who don't wish to marry have trouble competing for loans vs people who can combine income. No reason to classify single people as a lessor class right?

[Pseudofool]

why not just get rid of any benefits and penalties of being married. That way people who choose to be single can compete. People who don't wish to marry have trouble competing for loans vs people who can combine income. No reason to classify single people as a lessor class right?Except two incomes are better than one to a lender. The security provided by a legal union I think makes it more likely for lenders to lend.

[Pseudofool]

So you're saying that if we let gay people "unionize" then they'll spend more money than they have... yeah, we need more of that. I'm perfectly content with folks these days only spending the money they have and not running up more debt, gay or not. Buying big ticket items does no more for the economy than spending that same money on a variety of small items.So you're saying people should only buy houses and such with money on hand. We'll you've got me there. :eyeroll

[alkemical]

why not just get rid of any benefits and penalties of being married. That way people who choose to be single can compete. People who don't wish to marry have trouble competing for loans vs people who can combine income. No reason to classify single people as a lessor class right?

What does that have to do with the topic of classifying married peoples? Oh wait, this is where you talk some **** and then run out of a thread.

[Dudeskey]

why not just get rid of any benefits and penalties of being married. That way people who choose to be single can compete. People who don't wish to marry have trouble competing for loans vs people who can combine income. No reason to classify single people as a lessor class right?

I'll do you one better... get rid of the issuance of marriage licenses altogether. It is a religious institution that violates the separation of church and state. Gay and straight couples will have civil unions. If they want to "get married", they go to a priest, not a magistrate.

[cutthemdown]

What does that have to do with the topic of classifying married peoples? Oh wait, this is where you talk some **** and then run out of a thread.

we are talking about how gay couples have trouble competing with straight couples because the playing field is not fair. I just pointed out single people get no special treatment, therefore in a way trying to say couples are more important then single individuals. I don't see why you have a problem with me making this point even if you totally disagree.

Whats your problem anyways? Since when do I run from a thread? I am very opinionated and not afraid to give it.

[alkemical]

we are talking about how gay couples have trouble competing with straight couples because the playing field is not fair. I just pointed out single people get no special treatment, therefore in a way trying to say couples are more important then single individuals. I don't see why you have a problem with me making this point even if you totally disagree.

Whats your problem anyways? Since when do I run from a thread? I am very opinionated and not afraid to give it.

You're a fraud. Once you get pushed beyond your level of discussion you turn tail and run...you had to change the subject because you didn't like the box you painted yourself in. Opinionated? Well it's good you are consistent - your standards are empty too.

[Garcia Bronco]

I believe that gay folk have a right to hire divorce attorneys also.

[cutthemdown]

You're a fraud. Once you get pushed beyond your level of discussion you turn tail and run...you had to change the subject because you didn't like the box you painted yourself in. Opinionated? Well it's good you are consistent - your standards are empty too.

You have no credibility so who cares what you think. Show me some examples where I run from a thread? I don't like the box I painted myself into huh? What the hell are you talking about?

I'm certainly not afraid of you in any shape or form. No reason to say much on a message board but it's obvious that you have some sort of personal problem with me. That's your problem not mine so pleased keep your bruised vaginal problems to yourself unless you have a real point to make.

Keep your made up fantasies about how I run from threads under your skirt so the men here can discuss the subject.

[cutthemdown]

I'll do you one better... get rid of the issuance of marriage licenses altogether. It is a religious institution that violates the separation of church and state. Gay and straight couples will have civil unions. If they want to "get married", they go to a priest, not a magistrate.

I'd have no problem with that. Let the religious people have there union in the eyes of god but not binding legally. Then level the playing field for couples who get a civil union, and of course you could do both right? There should be no marriage penalty, and not real financial benefit from it IMO. Why should people be forced to get married in order to compete with couples?

Unless like I said earlier the whole point of the benefits was to encourage people to have kids and raise them together. If that was the reason there is no reason to give gay couples those benefits because they don't have kids.

[cutthemdown]

Except two incomes are better than one to a lender. The security provided by a legal union I think makes it more likely for lenders to lend.

exactly my point. So people who choose to be single are basically never going to be able to compete for loan money with couples. Basically making the rules such that society is pushing you to be married. At least at looks like soon we will have the choice of marrying a man but still single people get screwed right?

I'm not saying its wrong, maybe single people are selfish and do less for society then people who raise kids? My point is gay people don't help society anymore then single men or women IMO so why should we give the benefits from it?

[cutthemdown]

Here's a funny story how it pays to have kids. At work once I put in for a day off before a friend of mine who did same job. It was like labor day weekend or something like that. So my boss says sorry too busy no one can have it off.

So the friday comes and my friends walks up and says watch how I get to leave in like 10 minutes. I said no way he won't let you. Then phone rings with a fake call his kid is sick at school. Boom he's gone!!! Of course he was my buddy I didnt say anything it was pretty funny. But after that I said next job I will make up some fake kids so I can use them to get days off and leave early all the time.

[Pseudofool]

Here's a funny story how it pays to have kids. At work once I put in for a day off before a friend of mine who did same job. It was like labor day weekend or something like that. So my boss says sorry too busy no one can have it off.

So the friday comes and my friends walks up and says watch how I get to leave in like 10 minutes. I said no way he won't let you. Then phone rings with a fake call his kid is sick at school. Boom he's gone!!! Of course he was my buddy I didnt say anything it was pretty funny. But after that I said next job I will make up some fake kids so I can use them to get days off and leave early all the time.Actually your story supports having fake kids, not real kids. ;D

[cutthemdown]

Actually your story supports having fake kids, not real kids. ;D

whats cool is the picture frames come with a little ready made family.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're a fraud. Once you get pushed beyond your level of discussion you turn tail and run...you had to change the subject because you didn't like the box you painted yourself in. Opinionated? Well it's good you are consistent - your standards are empty too.

QFT.

[cutthemdown]

QFT.

whatever.

I've never ran away from a thread. Making stuff up doesn't make you right, just a liar.

[cutthemdown]

There has to be some people who always disagree with me that will at least say that I hang around and argue my point.

[Tombstone RJ]

I still think the fed gov should be a non-player in personal lives. Let the states decide what unions are recognized as legal or not. This gives the couples the option to move to whatever state they feel best represents their own personal needs or agenda. We will always have "liberal" states and "conservative" states. If a homosexual couple wants to get married (for whatever reason) then they need to live in a state that grants and recognizes their union.

I really don't see why the feds need to be involved at all, unless of course, some whacko wants to abuse his/her marriage rights and do something stupid like marry his dog. However, the local authorities can deal with that nut job. If, for some strange reason his case gets all the way to the supreme court, then all the supreme court has to do is look at the legislation that says "between two homosapians" and bingo, the guy loses his case.

Its really not that big of a deal. Most people (99.99% of the population) will not abuse the right to marry. Most people (99.99% of them) just want to be happy and share a life with someone they love (and perhaps reap the benefits of a binding union).

I just don't see where the fed gov needs to be involved. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does include the institution of marriage and the only way the fed gov should get involved is if that institution is abused or subjugates someone else.

[W*GS]

The Federal government has no right to dictate who can be married and who can't. Again, this is an abuse of power by the Feds.

The Federal government should simply leave it up to the individual states to either recognize or not recognize homosexual marriage.

The problem is that a gay couple married in (say) Massachusetts wouldn't be legally recognized as married in (say) Alabama. The SCOTUS already ruled regarding miscegenation laws that such laws were illegal everywhere.

It's the same deal as CA recognizing CO driver's licenses. Either gays are allowed to marry everywhere, or we'll run into the same problem.

[Tombstone RJ]

The problem is that a gay couple married in (say) Massachusetts wouldn't be legally recognized as married in (say) Alabama. The SCOTUS already ruled regarding miscegenation laws that such laws were illegal everywhere.

It's the same deal as CA recognizing CO driver's licenses. Either gays are allowed to marry everywhere, or we'll run into the same problem.

I understand that, unfortunately, the gays could not live in the state that don't recognize their union.

If gays want to get married in a particular state, then they have to stay in that state, or move to a state that recognizes their union.

Too bad if all the states do not recognize their union. That is the state's prerogitive. If the gay couple want to move to a state that does not recognize their union, then too bad for them. Furthermore, if they want to force the issue with the fed gov. all the fed gov has to say is "It's the states prerogitive to either recognize or not recognize your union, we are not getting involved."

LESS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BETTER PEOPLE!!!!

[alkemical]

You have no credibility so who cares what you think. Show me some examples where I run from a thread? I don't like the box I painted myself into huh? What the hell are you talking about?

I'm certainly not afraid of you in any shape or form. No reason to say much on a message board but it's obvious that you have some sort of personal problem with me. That's your problem not mine so pleased keep your bruised vaginal problems to yourself unless you have a real point to make.

Keep your made up fantasies about how I run from threads under your skirt so the men here can discuss the subject.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2010972#post2010972

For someone saying i have no credibility - it's here for all to see that is indeed...otherwise.

You are a fraud, a hypocrite and most of all...a liar to yourself.

[cutthemdown]

big deal some thread where we argue what's that prove?

[alkemical]

I apologize: Before i thought you were just an asshole. Now i realize you are just really ****ing stupid. Continue on.

[cutthemdown]

I apologize:

accepted moron

[alkemical]

accepted moron


Yes, yes you are.

[cutthemdown]

I challenge you to a post off!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alkemical]

According to Wags, 1k of my posts are equal to an issue of the economist. I got two full years worth and a special edition. Top that!

[Tombstone RJ]

I think it would behoove both of you two (ames and cut) to just "let it go." You both have valid opinions, it's in both of your best interest to leave the personal attacks behind and just agree to disagree.

[DenverBrit]

Economic score: 0.00
Social score: -4.00

Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially moderately libertarian.

Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.

Moderate social libertarians generally favour a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[cutthemdown]

I think it would behoove both of you two (ames and cut) to just "let it go." You both have valid opinions, it's in both of your best interest to leave the personal attacks behind and just agree to disagree.

really though it's obvious who started it. He just came out me from out of nowhere and started blasting away. But on your point the reason for the Zoolander inference was to just make light of it and let it go.

[That One Guy]

So you're saying people should only buy houses and such with money on hand. We'll you've got me there. :eyeroll

You make it sound like they're getting more than one or two loans.

Can't anyone co-sign on a loan or is it only family? I haven't bought anything on credit really since I was like 18.

[gunns]

I'd have no problem with that. Let the religious people have there union in the eyes of god but not binding legally. Then level the playing field for couples who get a civil union, and of course you could do both right? There should be no marriage penalty, and not real financial benefit from it IMO. Why should people be forced to get married in order to compete with couples?

Unless like I said earlier the whole point of the benefits was to encourage people to have kids and raise them together. If that was the reason there is no reason to give gay couples those benefits because they don't have kids.

They don't? I'll have to tell my gay cousin and his partner that those 3 kids sleeping in their house aren't theirs even though the court says they are.

[cutthemdown]

They don't? I'll have to tell my gay cousin and his partner that those 3 kids sleeping in their house aren't theirs even though the court says they are.

they may adopt and take care of kids but they don't have kids. I would be fine with helping anyone saddled with taking care of kids. I would think the % of gay couples adopting kids is pretty low.

[cutthemdown]

You make it sound like they're getting more than one or two loans.

Can't anyone co-sign on a loan or is it only family? I haven't bought anything on credit really since I was like 18.

You can get a cosigner but it's not like having 2 combined incomes. It isn't however limited to only family.

[Garcia Bronco]

Can't we all just get along?

[TexanBob]

"All states have the right to either recognize or not recognize the legal union (marriage) of two willing individual, and adult homosapiens."

Simple, and to the point. This would eliminate abuse by individuals who want to have multiple wives, or the fringe loonies who want to marry their favorite pet horse.

Otherwise, the Federal government should stay the hell out of the way and let people decide for themselves who they can marry.

HEY! Who are YOU to judge what a man does with his horse?? If two creatures love each other, what is wrong with legally recognizing that? And why shouldn't a horse get social security benefits and pensions as a surviving spouse? Take your narrow-minded equiphobic bigotry and shove it up your ass, you speciesist.

[Pseudofool]

HEY! Who are YOU to judge what a man does with his horse?? If two creatures love each other, what is wrong with legally recognizing that? And why shouldn't a horse get social security benefits and pensions as a surviving spouse? Take your narrow-minded equiphobic bigotry and shove it up your ass, you speciesist.Slippery slope. If we give Black people the right to vote, pretty soon monkeys will want to start voting.

[TexanBob]

Slippery slope. If we give Black people the right to vote, pretty soon monkeys will want to start voting.

What makes you think monkeys aren't voting now? Obama used to work for ACORN and one thing ACORN understands is that you don't need a real person to become a registered voter.

[Pseudofool]

What makes you think monkeys aren't voting now? Obama used to work for ACORN and one thing ACORN understands is that you don't need a real person to become a registered voter.Yeah and Diebold counts votes totally accurately.

Are you actually a real person, or just an internet personality--I'm having trouble believing you really exist considering some of the things that you type. I'm thinking your a liberal mole trying to demonstrate some fake conservative strawman.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah and Diebold counts votes totally accurately.

Are you actually a real person, or just an internet personality--I'm having trouble believing you really exist considering some of the things that you type. I'm thinking your a liberal mole trying to demonstrate some fake conservative strawman.

You've got to take into account he's from Texas. That's normal there. ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What makes you think monkeys aren't voting now?

Good point.

http://www.webbusiness.no/webprivat/usa/upfiles/bush_monkey.jpg