Are you a NeoCon? Take the Quiz

[ChumpDumper]

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

[whottt]

I was born two months before Galtieri lost the war and left! If I was around at that time, I wouldn't be posting here probably!

Yes, my views are considered extreme in my country, but also moderate...how is that possible? Well, I'm a person that puts human beings above anything else, state, religions, politics, economies, nationalities, etc, etc, etc., I have 4 grandparents with 4 different nationalities, I was born in Argentina but lived in 6 countries, and I can say I have left friends in each one of them. Many people here have hatred towards the US with no reason, that's why I might look moderate to you.

actually it's just that you seem more laidback.

I'm not saying smeagol or anyone else is that kind of person,

I think it's been well established that smeagol is the root of all evil in the world today.

I'm just saying that here many people tend to blame the powerful as the first reason that comes to their mind, whether it's the US, Europe, IMF, our own goverment or Santa. Of course, neither we or the other countries are saints (we all have our good, bads, right, wrongs, black, whites and greys), but my own stance on the matter is that we should care for our own (country and region) first and once we are able to grow and become strong, then take positions in the global scale. Otherwise, it will be history repeating.

America actually used to be a lot like that and most of us would probably like to return to being able to do that....but getting drug into two WWII's forced us to take a position as the World Police....it's not so much that we wanted to do it...it just kind of fell to use to do it and we learned the hard way what happens when we try to ignore hostilities taking place elsewhere in the world...well most of us learned that lesson. Like I said...this role was thrust on us by the rest of the world moreso than we sought it.

The UN is supposed to do it...but all they do is make endless resolutions that no one respects...they never enforce their own resolutions and they are impotent in that role...pretty much the only purpose they serve is obstructing anyone from doing anything...that's great for stopping the spread of dictators...but it does absolutely nothing to get rid of them.

Usually I'm not represented neither by the classical left or right in my country. Our Right Wing is corrupt, and cares only about making themselves richer, basically, they have been ing up the country for the last 40 years;

This is what I see to be true in almost every country...and I am not saying America isn't motivated by $$$ as much as anyone else...

But this country has never had an aristocratic/peasant structure that is typical of most of the rest of the world...It's always been a populist country...even on the right...Our wealthy often become extreme liberals themselves and engage in a lot of huge scare philanthropy.

It's the aristocratic overlay of conservatism that makes it a corrupt system...when it's combined with a populous mindset it turns out to be the most compassionate and liberal IMO.

our Left is pathetic, they didn't notice the Berlin wall falling, they believe Stalinism was good, have Fidel Castro as a hero, and they are divided in inifinite parties on minnor differences.

Having a ton of strong smaller parties has always seemed counter productive to me...it leaves the possiblity of a minority majority...I mean the two party system is not great and I definitely see the need for a third party here in America(since our left and right are moving further apart)...but it does promote moderation..and that's the best and most openminded approach IMO.

Oh, I don't believe in Marx either. At least not as some in the left do, like he was the Bible for the left, where everything that St. Marx said was unconstested holy word. To me, he was a smart political and economical analyst of his time, but things have changed, obviously. But I can read something different everyday and change my point of view, nothing is sacred other than a human being life (in that sense I'm a secular humanist).

Yeah but if you look at your trend towards anarchism that is the Marxist Utopia...where there is no need for government...that is entirely un-realistic to my mind set...because someone will come along and wipe you out...but a lot of modern anarchists claim they are the true Marxists snd with your political inclinations you could easily make that claim.

However your view is a rare one and one that is impossible to implement in a world where there is any opposing view...

Marxism is supposed to eliminate class but all it has done is every application of it that I have seen is eliminate the middle class and create extreme class separation...where you have a very small upper class with total authority over everything(the government) and a very liberally impoverished lower class(the workers)...


[quote]Probably this whole thinking of mine is what keeps me away from this Poltical Forum. It seems to be limited to:

- Bush/Republicans bad in anything they do.
- Bush/Republicans great in anything they do.
- US is
- US is the best thing since sliced bread

It's a very polarized time and W is a very polarizing figure...but in all honestly...most of the people that are glossed as saying Bush/Republicans are great in everything they do are defending from endless brutal attacks on the President during a time of crisis in our country.

- Political and ideas debates mutate into personal attacks and calling people names.

Well...if people wouldn't be stupid ing bags they wouldn't get called names


-

On a side note, I can understand you getting upset with people from other countries being critical towards the US, in some parts is a cliché (blame the US for everything), but in others it's justified. I can't say what it would be like with Argentina in that position, , the world would probably be a schizophrenic, corrupt place if we were the leading military and economical nation!

Well, talking with you international posters, something about the innerworkings of politics in other countries is becoming more and more apparent to me...

In Argentina's recent past they haven't just had extreme leftists like yourself...they've also produced some extreme rightists...

The conclusion that I draw from this is that extremism promotes oppositional extremism resulting in a highly polarized political structure...

This is not lost on me as my country has basically lost it's moderate voice in recent years...and seems to be moving towards more polarization...a few years ago I would have been considered a liberal...

Another side note, my ideal country in practical terms in my lifetime would be something close (but not quite similar) to any of the Scandinavian nations.

I can see why you like the Scandanavian countries, but that model could never work for America...America has too many different races and cultures...more than any other country in the world...to use a method of a common cultural or ethnic tie that many of the peaceful European countries are able to implement...you look at the problems that those countries, and really all of Europe has, integrating their minorities...and you see America actually is the best in the world at assimilating immigrant populations to a common culture, while maintaining moderacy, but it's a nationalistic culture....that's why was our nationalism seems to be so rabid...it's one thing more of us can feel strongly about.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Sorry about the delay answering this. I encourage everyone who hasn't taken his Political compass exam to do it! It's fun! (well, a nerdy way of fun)

America actually used to be a lot like that and most of us would probably like to return to being able to do that....but getting drug into two WWII's forced us to take a position as the World Police....it's not so much that we wanted to do it...it just kind of fell to use to do it and we learned the hard way what happens when we try to ignore hostilities taking place elsewhere in the world...well most of us learned that lesson. Like I said...this role was thrust on us by the rest of the world moreso than we sought it.

America undoubtly was dragged into the World Wars by Europe. If it was by America, you would have kept the islationist stance, but making business with everyone, whether it was the UK, Nazi Germany or any other non-communist nation. I'm not pointing the finger here, as you have pointed out before, our own goverment at the time wasn't exactly anti-Nazi. However, I believe that a stronger reason for America's role in the world after WWII was Communism. The anti-communist fever of the late 40's and early 50's had a huge impact on the next three decades of American foreign relations. What makes some people not believe in America's intentions when "democracy" is mentioned as a reason to fight this wars, is the belief that the wars are fought to open new markets for American companies. This is a phenom that usually happens in Third World or developing countries that were either British or Spanish colonies. There is a strong feeling that wars are colonialism repeating itself again. To me, it's a reductionistic logic, even when some of the starting points may contain some truth, you can't apply reductionism on something so complex as global political relationships. With the ongrowing influence of corporations and business agents as more and more powerful ins utions, expect to hear this "War for money" reasoning. America has obviously ed up things in Latin America in the past, trainning, planning and supporting Dictatorships that killed hundreds of thousands. But, also many people in our own countries supported those dictatoships (specially that aristocratic, oligarchic class), yet, the average Juan forgets to blame them.

This is what I see to be true in almost every country...and I am not saying America isn't motivated by $$$ as much as anyone else...

But this country has never had an aristocratic/peasant structure that is typical of most of the rest of the world...It's always been a populist country...even on the right...Our wealthy often become extreme liberals themselves and engage in a lot of huge scare philanthropy.

It's the aristocratic overlay of conservatism that makes it a corrupt system...when it's combined with a populous mindset it turns out to be the most compassionate and liberal IMO.

There are cultural isuess too. Countries that had an important influence of Protestantism when they became democracies, were and are less vulnerable to oligarchic corruption and military coups. Of course, there are corruption cases in those countries, but it's not an ins utional corruption like in many Third World nations.

Having a ton of strong smaller parties has always seemed counter productive to me...it leaves the possiblity of a minority majority...I mean the two party system is not great and I definitely see the need for a third party here in America(since our left and right are moving further apart)...but it does promote moderation..and that's the best and most openminded approach IMO.

Indeed, I agree. However I believe in the need not only of a third party, but of many alternatives. If a third party shows itself as an alternative to one of the other two (e.g. as an alternative to the Republicans, then it would split the Republican vote), it would only make one party stronger. I believe, the more options available, the better. However, when countries are in crisis, I do understand the need of one strong goverment, both in the executive and legislative powers. I do not agree that the US itself is in a crisis where such a goverment is needed, my stance is more about internal crisis, like Argentinian economy blowing up in 2001.

Yeah but if you look at your trend towards anarchism that is the Marxist Utopia...where there is no need for government...that is entirely un-realistic to my mind set...because someone will come along and wipe you out...but a lot of modern anarchists claim they are the true Marxists snd with your political inclinations you could easily make that claim.

However your view is a rare one and one that is impossible to implement in a world where there is any opposing view...

Marxism is supposed to eliminate class but all it has done is every application of it that I have seen is eliminate the middle class and create extreme class separation...where you have a very small upper class with total authority over everything(the government) and a very liberally impoverished lower class(the workers)...

Like I said, I'm not a traditional marxist (I'm not even sure I qualify as a marxist). I do not believe in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (a wrong idea, and even a worse application, as shown by the Communist examples of the 20th. Century). I do believe in a more equal society, but that will be reached in the form of progress rather than revolutions (I'm also a pacifist, I'm against all kinds of violence, except in extreme situations).

Some Anarchist tend to say that they are the true Marxist, but I believe that they are a more realistic and human alternative than others in the left, not the true "Marxists" as someone who represents Marx's ideas (he kicked Bakunin out of the International). Communism (specially the Bolshevik brand) is worse than extreme capitalism, as it has been proved in history.

With this, I'm moving into another issue, that is, I believe no system is flawless, and no system is absolutely bad, except for facism and totalitarism. Like in culture, there is something positive you can get out of everything, no matter how bad it looks. Different systems and goverments chosen during specific times, in specific places, with specific economical conditions, happen for a reason, not everytime some country votes left is good, or every time it votes right is wrong, or viceversa.

On a side note, I know how bad Stalinism was, not only from reading history books, but my Grandfather was Polish. He fought both Nazi Germany and USSR in WWII. He flew to Great Britain when the Polish resistance army collapsed. There he joined the Polish forces that fought with the Allies later in the war. He used to tell me when I was a kid (something might get lost in translation): "In Nazism, you can't complain on the state of things; in Stalinism, the Politbureau will tell you what and when to shout; in Capitalism you can shout all you want: no one is listenning!"

It's a very polarized time and W is a very polarizing figure...but in all honestly...most of the people that are glossed as saying Bush/Republicans are great in everything they do are defending from endless brutal attacks on the President during a time of crisis in our country.

Hmm, this is a tricky issue. I do understand that W is a polarizing figure, however, I don't share this "everything my goverment does is good". To me, it sounds as what a USSR or Nazi Germany citizen would say (No, I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler as some in the left enjoy doing). Even if someone as idealistic as me sees a goverment that I voted in power, I would still be critical towards it. But of course, this coming from a lefty Argie, which can't understand the Red-State mentality.

Well, talking with you international posters, something about the innerworkings of politics in other countries is becoming more and more apparent to me...

In Argentina's recent past they haven't just had extreme leftists like yourself...they've also produced some extreme rightists...

The conclusion that I draw from this is that extremism promotes oppositional extremism resulting in a highly polarized political structure...

This is not lost on me as my country has basically lost it's moderate voice in recent years...and seems to be moving towards more polarization...a few years ago I would have been considered a liberal...

We've never been a moderate country. We enjoy more our own blood than someone else's, we fought only one war against a foreign country from 1870 to 1982, but a lot of blood was spilled on internal political disputes. This is were I take distance from those extremists; both sides saw violence as the only solution. I'm not really sure if the World is moving towards polarization; I believe that polarization has more impact on the media as a natural movement (people have more interest in extremes). If some center president is elected in Switzerland, no one gives a damn, and the audience would probably change the channel, station or won't buy the newspaper.

I can see why you like the Scandanavian countries, but that model could never work for America...America has too many different races and cultures...more than any other country in the world...to use a method of a common cultural or ethnic tie that many of the peaceful European countries are able to implement...you look at the problems that those countries, and really all of Europe has, integrating their minorities...and you see America actually is the best in the world at assimilating immigrant populations to a common culture, while maintaining moderacy, but it's a nationalistic culture....that's why was our nationalism seems to be so rabid...it's one thing more of us can feel strongly about.

I believe it's more of an economical issue rather than a racial one. A 50% income tax for the rich could never work in America.

[Yonivore]

Damn, I'm in good company!

Neoconservative

Neoconservatives…

Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace
Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

[2pac]

Most Islamofascists are Conservatives...

in dumbass - islamofacists arent policital hacks, they are doing what they do because of religion. To say a terrorist was conservative or liberal is idiotic.

[whottt]

in dumbass - islamofacists arent policital hacks, they are doing what they do because of religion. To say a terrorist was conservative or liberal is idiotic.

I think you just don't understand the definition of conservative...it means one thing in America and something else in other parts of the world.

Conservatism usually goes hand in hand with deep religious conviction, another tenet of it is a return to traditional ways, in their part of the world that means a return to the Ottoman Empire...and yet another traditional aspect of true conservatism is that anyone that doesn't share their view is evil..or wrong, regardless of actual threat.

They are definitely conservatives, and they are definitely political...You can say their methods of returning to that lifestyle are radical...but so is pre-emptive war against Iraq.

Conservatism isn't truly a right or left thing, and it isn't always good, anymore than liberalism is always bad...it's just become that way in America recently due to the historic trend of conservatism in the Republican party.


If you subs ute Islam for Christianity there isn't a whole lot of difference between the Islamofascists and the extreme ultra conservative right wingers here in the US.

[2pac]

it means one thing in America and something else in other parts of the world.

Which is my whole point numbnuts. You are an idiot for comparing two things with two definitions.

Conservatism usually goes hand in hand with deep religious conviction,

Not true at all.

another tenet of it is a return to traditional ways

Not true at all.

yet another traditional aspect of true conservatism is that anyone that doesn't share their view is evil..or wrong, regardless of actual threat.

Absolutely not true at all.

They are definitely conservatives,

Nope. They are radical nutjobs with no political affiliations.

and they are definitely political

They have absolutely no political affiliation whatsoever. They are religiously-affiliated. Just because one is religious doesn't mean they are at all political.

You can say their methods of returning to that lifestyle are radical...but so is pre-emptive war against Iraq.

What they are doing is radical.

Freeing Iraq cannot be put in the same category as flying planes into buildings. Anyone who chooses to do so, does at their own loss of integrity and any respect of intelligence.

Conservatism isn't truly a right or left thing, and it isn't always good, anymore than liberalism is always bad...it's just become that way in America recently due to the historic trend of conservatism in the Republican party.

The one who doesnt know what they are talking about clearly isnt me.

Go read some books and learn about history.

[Dos]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: 0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.64

damm I am left of tony blair ... sheesh

[whottt]

Which is my whole point numbnuts. You are an idiot for comparing two things with two definitions.

No dip ...you're just too ing stupid to get it. Don't make your stupidity my problem.

America didn't invent the ing word...it had a definition prior to our existence.

blah blah blah blah blach blah

Yes true.

Nope. They are radical nutjobs with no political affiliations.


They have absolutely no political affiliation whatsoever. They are religiously-affiliated. Just because one is religious doesn't mean they are at all political.

Idiot...go look up the definition of political.

What they are doing is radical.

Freeing Iraq cannot be put in the same category as flying planes into buildings. Anyone who chooses to do so, does at their own loss of integrity and any respect of intelligence.

It doesn't matter...it's still radical by the standards of this country. And terrorism isn't so radical by their definition. Only by ours...

And you act like we've never had any homegrown terrorists before...go hang out an abortion clinic sometime...

The one who doesnt know what they are talking about clearly isnt me.

Go read some books and learn about history.

Go buy a ing dictionary...look up the word and etymology for conservative and then go look up political...

Then apologize and shut up.

[2pac]

You are trying to apply religious definitions to political ones and vice versa. This is a political thread, and you are trying to make it religious. The two things are not directly linked.

Here you go - from the dictionary:
con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.


Of or relating to treatment by gradual, limited, or well-established procedures; not radical.


By definition, conservative is not radical - it is slow changing.



While looking up etymology, did you or your idiot friends ever figure out what a neocon is?

It didn't take long - a year or two - for the socialist writer Michael Harrington to come up with the term "neoconservative" to describe a renegade liberal like myself.

You seem to be confusing fundamalists with being conservative. While sometimes people are both - they are not always.

Idiot...go look up the definition of political.

Of or having to do with politics. They dont care about politics. They want to destroy all non-Islamic radicals. Thats why they even hate and seek to destroy other Islamics (bombs in Egypt recently and OBL hates Saudi Arabia.) This isnt political, even thought you want it to be. They wanted to destroy all non-Islamic radicals just as much when this country was run by all democrats (Iranian Hostages, WTC bombing) as they do when it is run by all republicans (9/11.) Their objective trancends the little blinders you have on.

It doesn't matter...it's still radical by the standards of this country. And terrorism isn't so radical by their definition. Only by ours...

And you act like we've never had any homegrown terrorists before...go hang out an abortion clinic sometime...

Homegrown terrorists are just as radical as foriegn ones.
Go talk to the average Muslim. They find that the RADICAL Muslim Fundamentalists are Radical. Because it is more prevalant over there doesnt mean it isnt radical.

[whottt]

However, I believe that a stronger reason for America's role in the world after WWII was Communism. The anti-communist fever of the late 40's and early 50's had a huge impact on the next three decades of American foreign relations.

It was definitely Communism but it was Communism combined with a nuclear arms race, and it was more the Russian brand of communism than th the Chinese...it wasn't until the Chinese started getting expansionist that we had a problem with them...Communism was intent on expansion and every country that fell to communism had Anti-American nuclear potential.

America wasn't attempting to topple or interfere with regimes to enforce Democracy...only to fight Communism or Communist Sympathy.

In the middle east we didn't give two s if a country was an Islamic country or not...but if they were getting friendly with the Russians we did...and it just so happens that most of these extremist Islamic movements were friendly with the Russians...in fact the Russians were financing them long before the Saudis, Americans and Iranians started doing it.

But yes...we'd ally ourselves with a pro-western military dictator or opressive monarch, or anyone else, as long as they weren't leaning towards the Russians or Communism...and if they were leaning towards being Pro-Russian than Democracy wasn't going to keep us a bay. So yeah...it's more like we were anti-Communist than attempting to spread Democacy or...Imperialism.

It's called the Truman Doctrine.

What makes some people not believe in America's intentions when "democracy" is mentioned as a reason to fight this wars, is the belief that the wars are fought to open new markets for American companies.
This is a phenom that usually happens in Third World or developing countries that were either British or Spanish colonies. There is a strong feeling that wars are colonialism repeating itself again. To me, it's a reductionistic logic, even when some of the starting points may contain some truth, you can't apply reductionism on something so complex as global political relationships.

Exactly right...and the French were a colonial power too, a particularly bad one in Africa...America never truly was...I guess you could consider Puerto Rico and the Phillipines colonies...but it's not the same as the European Concept...

The Europeans definitely do not believe in Populism...and America does...that's part of the reason the Europeans don't like us...they think we are barbaric that common people hold so much sway over the government and anyone can rise up from the lower classes...This not really true in Europe...not even to this day.

I mean we've been out for money as much as anyone else is...but the countries we've invaded or fought wars in are among the place with the highest immigration rates and quality of life in the world...this is not true of what the Europeans did...but when they say West they lump us all together and since America is now the leader of the Western world we are guilty of the European colonial atrocities just by association...plus our own colonial history in North America.

With the ongrowing influence of corporations and business agents as more and more powerful ins utions, expect to hear this "War for money" reasoning. America has obviously ed up things in Latin America in the past, trainning, planning and supporting Dictatorships that killed hundreds of thousands. But, also many people in our own countries supported those dictatoships (specially that aristocratic, oligarchic class), yet, the average Juan forgets to blame them.

Yes true, and nearly every time we have done it it is because the Country was trending towards communism and that meant we'd have some Russian nukes stuck up our butts...we've never once been hostile to a Pro-Western Democratic Government...

I think a lot of people feel that we will up the economy of a Pro-Western Country just to make money...and that's not what it is...we didn't up the economies of France, Germany and Japan...We've ed with countries if they were going Socialist even if they were doing it by Democratic process...We were in a war...the Cold War.

I can see why people would resent us for that..but all I see is that all the Socialist and Communist countries have people dying to leave them and very high emmigration rates...while the Western Democracies have the highest immigration rates and standards of living in the world. There's no doubt which one attracts people and which one repels them.

There are cultural isuess too. Countries that had an important influence of Protestantism when they became democracies, were and are less vulnerable to oligarchic corruption and military coups. Of course, there are corruption cases in those countries, but it's not an ins utional corruption like in many Third World nations.

Oh now I disagree with that...Religion in the Government IMO is the gateway to ultimate corruption...

The other thing that leads to cultural corruption is poverty...anyone will become corrupt living in poverty.

I do not agree that the US itself is in a crisis where such a goverment is needed, my stance is more about internal crisis, like Argentinian economy blowing up in 2001.

It just depends...we've come close to reaching a state of right left violence in this country before...in the 60's.

Like I said, I'm not a traditional marxist (I'm not even sure I qualify as a marxist). I do not believe in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (a wrong idea, and even a worse application, as shown by the Communist examples of the 20th. Century). I do believe in a more equal society, but that will be reached in the form of progress rather than revolutions

Again..this is one of the difference between the American and European...concepts of Capitalism...

America was founded by the Proletariat....The American Bourgeois came out of the Proletariat, they worked their way up so even though the wealth classes do exist..they are not out of touch with each other for the most part, the Bouregois here remember. It is a contintual up and down cycle and every Proletariat has the opportunity to attain the status of the Bourgeois, and once they have done so they can be as much of a Marxist as they like(as long as they don't try to turn the government)...this is not true in Europe...not even do this day.

There are walls between the classes in Europe...just as there were between they and their colonies...this has never really been true in America except with the Blacks...and we fixed that..ourselves.

There is a huge difference between the European and American concepts of both Democracy and Capitalism...and much of the sins attributed to America are because of the view of the European concepts of these things....but I wonder why no one ever notices that many of the European intellectuals consider us backwards barbarians...in their eyes we are still the Proletariat you see...unfit to be more powerful than they are. Unfit to be the leader of the Western World.


And technological advancement...Capitalism, not Communism...is the gateway to the Communist Utopia...it will never come out of poverty...When technology becomes the Proletariat only then can the kind of Communism Marx envisioned take place.

(I'm also a pacifist, I'm against all kinds of violence, except in extreme situations).

I wish the rest of the world were like you...then I could be that way too.

With this, I'm moving into another issue, that is, I believe no system is flawless, and no system is absolutely bad, except for facism and totalitarism. Like in culture, there is something positive you can get out of everything, no matter how bad it looks. Different systems and goverments chosen during specific times, in specific places, with specific economical conditions, happen for a reason, not everytime some country votes left is good, or every time it votes right is wrong, or viceversa.

I pretty much agree...but humans are very indivdualistic...and until that changes freedom of the individual is always going to be result in a happier population than the good of the group.

"In Nazism, you can't complain on the state of things; in Stalinism, the Politbureau will tell you what and when to shout; in Capitalism you can shout all you want: no one is listenning!"

LOL that's pretty true. Nothing has been more sucessful in America than peaceful protest though...it is a very powerful political factor here.

We've never been a moderate country. We enjoy more our own blood than someone else's, we fought only one war against a foreign country from 1870 to 1982, but a lot of blood was spilled on internal political disputes. This is were I take distance from those extremists; both sides saw violence as the only solution. I'm not really sure if the World is moving towards polarization; I believe that polarization has more impact on the media as a natural movement (people have more interest in extremes). If some center president is elected in Switzerland, no one gives a damn, and the audience would probably change the channel, station or won't buy the newspaper.



I believe it's more of an economical issue rather than a racial one. A 50% income tax for the rich could never work in America.

A 50% tax doesn't work anywhere forever...look at the way the economies of Germany and France are declining as their unemployment figures rise...their Socialist policies and strict employment proctections are doing the exact opposite of what they are intended to do...creating unemployment...not preventing it...and yes everyone has free health care...but it sucks.

[whottt]

Definition of Political:

po·lit·i·cal (p-lt-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: "Calling a meeting is a political act in itself" Daniel Goleman.
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political ins ution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.


Usama is a theorcrat if ever there was one and that most definitely is a political ideology and not at all a radical one in the Middle East...Politically or Religiously. Such has been the case there for a looooooooong time.


You seem to think that Usama's goal is to just kill a few women and children and take down the US...

No, that's not what his goal is...his goal is the reunifaction of the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire to it's pre WWI state, with himself as the Caliph, and that is the greatest tradition of Islam, it's high point. And he's using many of Muhammad's methods to achieve it.

That is his ultimate goal and he needs the US and Israel the out of the middle east to do it.

You are trying to apply religious definitions to political ones and vice versa. This is a political thread, and you are trying to make it religious. The two things are not directly linked.

LOL...only in America could someone think that is true...Religion is politics and has always been so. It is the oldest form of Governance.

You seem to be confusing fundamalists with being conservative. While sometimes people are both - they are not always.

In the case of the traditional conservatives in America...and those in the Middle East...it most certainly is the case.

You seem to think killing your enemies and bullying is radical...there is nothing radical about it...especially in the Middle East.

Of or having to do with politics. They dont care about politics. They want to destroy all non-Islamic radicals. Thats why they even hate and seek to destroy other Islamics (bombs in Egypt recently and OBL hates Saudi Arabia.) This isnt political, even thought you want it to be.

Um...Conservatism is not tolerance and a willingness to accept the ideas of others...under no definition.

They wanted to destroy all non-Islamic radicals just as much when this country was run by all democrats (Iranian Hostages, WTC bombing) as they do when it is run by all republicans (9/11.) Their objective trancends the little blinders you have on.

What the are you talking about...they are politically and religiously conservative, politically moreso than religiously...What are you going to regale me with next? You going to enlighten me that they aren't Christians?

And they don't really want the death of all Non Muslims, per se. I mean they do right now, but that's just following the words of Muhammad..once they gain control they get a little bit more tolerant...they just want to rule them and want the world to be Islamic...they will allow the Non-Muslims second class citizen status once they have gained power. , even the Taliban allowed Non-Muslims to stay there...in minority. Of course they could kill them anytime they felt like it for being non-muslim.

Homegrown terrorists are just as radical as foriegn ones.
Go talk to the average Muslim. They find that the RADICAL Muslim Fundamentalists are Radical. Because it is more prevalant over there doesnt mean it isnt radical.

Um...the average Muslim wants what the terrorists want, an Islamic State and to be governed by Islam...they just don't agree with the terrorist methods of achieving that...and those are the liberal Muslims by the way...and partly because those methods often kill them as well.

But there is nothing radical about Usama's methods in the middle east. Terrorism has been a part of Islam from day 1.


But since you continue to press this issue...

Those terrorists are -
anti-gay
anti-abortion
deeply religious, to the point where they feel that religion should play a big role in the government and every day life.
and bigoted towards other religions to where they feel that anyone that doesn't share their beliefs is either evil or misguided, lesser than they.

Now tell that me that is totally different from the definition here in America.

You can't...because there is nothing radical about religion being enlisted to justify killing...

Yes they practice terrorism,and we gained our independence from the UK with guerilla warfare...Radical indeed.

I am not drawing moral equivalancies here...just saying that Usama is a conservative in the part of the world he comes from...his tactics are different...but his goals are conservative.

[spurster]

Realist

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18

[Spurminator]

Realist...

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

[ChumpDumper]

goddam hippies

[RandomGuy]

These results should surprise no one...

Neocon quiz results
Based on your answers, you are most likely a liberal. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.


Liberal
Liberals…

* Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
* Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
* Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
* Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
* Oppose American imperialism
* Support international law, alliances, and agreements
* Encourage US participation in the UN
* Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

[RandomGuy]

p.s. RG scores almost exactly the same political ideology as the Dali Lama on the political compass quiz...

[jochhejaam]

For what it's worth, even thought I'm a strong supporter of Israel, I graded out as a realist.


Neocon quiz results

Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

And the political compass;

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.69

[LittleGeneral]

Liberal

Liberals…

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor
Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson

Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

[cecil collins]

Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

The other quiz ate my nuts.

[RandomGuy]

Definition of Political:

But since you continue to press this issue...

Those terrorists are -
anti-gay
anti-abortion
deeply religious, to the point where they feel that religion should play a big role in the government and every day life.
and bigoted towards other religions to where they feel that anyone that doesn't share their beliefs is either evil or misguided, lesser than they.

Now tell that me that is totally different from the definition here in America.

You can't...because there is nothing radical about religion being enlisted to justify killing...

Yes they practice terrorism,and we gained our independence from the UK with guerilla warfare...Radical indeed.

I am not drawing moral equivalancies here...just saying that Usama is a conservative in the part of the world he comes from...his tactics are different...but his goals are conservative.

Quite. They are every bit believers in the "ends justify the means" and anti-Enlightenment.

(enlightenment in terms of the Aufklarung--
Aufklarung
A philosophic movement of the 18th century characterized by a lively questioning of authority, keen interest in matters of politics and general culture, and an emphasis on empirical method in science. It received its impetus from the unsystematic but vigorous skepticism of Pierre Bayle, the physical doctrines of Newton, and the epistemological theories of Locke, in the preceding century. Its chief center was in France, where it gave rise to the skepticism of Voltaire , the naturalism of Rousseau, the sensationalism of Condillac, and the publication of the "Encyclopedia" by D'Alembert and Diderot. In Germany, Lessing, Mendelssohn, and Herder were representative thinkers, while the political doctrines of the leaders of the American Revolution and the speculations of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine represented the movement in America. )

[hendrix]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -9.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.26

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -9.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.26

We Argies are the best!

[whottt]

Since it's a test taking day there are a couple more in this old thread...a Neocon quiz.

[Spurminator]

Link don't work no more