Know your political self
Bookworm on Nov 14 2006 at 11:28 am | Filed under: Silly Stuff
Donald Hagen, who blogs at Rhymes with Right, took the time to prepare a lengthy satirical quiz, looking at the probable political attitudes of conservatives, liberals, libertarians and communists. Although the quiz isn’t meant to be taken too seriously, I definitely fall on the conservative/libertarian scale (or would, if I were keeping serious track of my answers). Anyway, it’s a clever bit of work, so you might want to check it out.
UPDATE: Donald Hagen doesn’t blog at Rhymes with Right, but it’s such a good blog, you should be sure to check it out anyway.
Email This Post To A Friend
19 Responses to “Know your political self”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I do not have the time or the patience to be able to do what Hagen did.
Some of his answers, are of course ambiguous. There are conservatives who believe that special interests are also corruption, or maybe all of the above as reasons for why.
It is hard to categorize specifics concerning “if you believe this, then this is on that spectrum”. Arg.
I go with schools of political thought by Russel Meade. Not spectrums. More like pendulums. Physics, you know.
CONS: Conservative (Archconservative)
LIBL: Liberal (Leftwing Wacko)
LBRT: Libertarian (Antigovernment Libertine)
COMM: Communist (Commie Sympathizer)
I prefer the title of “Arch Lich” btw
No, Don does not blog at my place — but thanks for the link!
It’s all about the Middle East. Iraq is a diversion. As the army attacks Iraq, the US gov’t erodes rights at home by suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like “America Deceived” from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting 2 illegal wars based on lies. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier) and the US will invade Iran, (on behalf of Israel).
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov’t demands and censors the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Wow! I thought the Left would stop being angry and paranoid after the last elections. Hmmm. I guess there is something different going on, as James Tarantino points out in today’s Best of the Web.
“A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed.”
Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics
Yes, Rove rigged the elections so that the Democrats would win. Rage on, people, rage on, at the dying of the light, or whatever crack you are smoking.
They are in the I universe, the Universe of I, all Is, all the time.
Actually George Soros decided to stop wasting money with pathetic sideshows like Cindy Sheehan and simply hire the people to hack the voting machines and give the election to the Democrats. It is a plausible scenario. Soros has the money. The machines can be hacked; ask T.S.
The net roots have the hackers. What else do those college liberals do.
BTW, I couldn’t help noticing that the book “5th” wants everyone to read is a novel, not a book on philosophy or political history or poly sci…
I also noticed that it’s sitting out there without anyone interfering with its sale.
If you want to read about American Holocaust, read “Prayers for the Assassin”. The United Islamic States of America.
he machines can be hacked; ask T.S.- Zhombre
Yes, they can be hacked. But dont ask me. Ask a host of computer scientists at Princeton, MIT, and other universities.
Christopher Hitchens wrote a convincing article on hacking the vote after the 2004 election.
Others have since followed suit.
I never heard George Soros being mentioned in any of it, however.
No, you haven’t heard much at all about Soros lately. He’s an astute man and he’s kept a low profile. He operates behind the scenes, under radar as it were. He got tired of funding the 527 groups because they failed to deliver in 2004; and he was certainly apprised of the Princton & MIT computer scientists and the potential for hacking the vote. And there is a credible if not verified report Soros met personally with some computer hackers in Cancun during spring 2005, and also with officials of the Venezuelan company which provides some voting machines for the U.S. Of course, the media is not going to report any of this.
And there is a credible if not verified report Soros met personally with some computer hackers in Cancun during spring 2005, and also with officials of the Venezuelan company which provides some voting machines for the U.S. Of course, the media is not going to report any of this.- Zhombre
The media didnt say much about e-voting tampering in Florida in 2000, or Georgia in 2002 or Ohio in 2004, either. By the end of 2004, people like Christopher Hitchens and Keith Olbermann questioned what occured in Ohio, but the media, for the most part, remained mum. Robert Kennedy, Jr subsequently wrote a piece on vote tampering for Rolling Stone, which was countered by others, and then re-countered, and HBO recently aired a documentary on it, but when flags were first being raised, those speaking out were called “conspiracy theorists.”
(Then again, as early as Sept 2002, there were credible reports that the WMD issue was just a ruse, but the mainstream media hyped the official WMD story as if its job were to sell the war).
But back on topic: A Florida-based computer programmer testified before Congress that he was told to rig e-voting software - and that didn’t even make the national news.
The bigger story is that elections can be stolen- without detection. And, without a paper trail, it would be impossible to know who really won.
This is very cleaver and self-enlightening. Funny, too. I don’t fit the LIBL category nearly as neatly as I would have predicted.
When are you going to stop playing dodge ball, TS? IF it can’t be detected, then does this mean TS is omniscient, that he can detect the undetectable, expose the unexposable with the powers of God?
Soros is astute enough to know it is undetectable and that is why he has employed the hackers and enlisted the Venezuelan company to buy U.S. voting machines, using Chavez petrodollars as a front:
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/03/31/venezuelas-involvement-in-us-elections/
Might explain how those incumbent Democrats never lost a seat. Electing moderate Democrats makes sense, but Steele and etc losing? Makes little sense, even if there were no Leftist “operators” running around with proxie IDs on the net trolling for tinfoil. Not refering to TS, but just to what we know exists.
Of, none of this matters to me, because I never believed in playing fair with people who have no honor. That’s just a personal quirk of mine. I expect the Democrats to cheat, if they didn’t, I would actually start liking them.
I would like to suggest the following simple solution–go back to punch card ballots or better yet, x’s in boxes next to names. I would also like to offer the Social Darwinism observation that if these methods of voting are too complicated for the voter, the voter shouldn’t vote! That’ll permanently relegate the liberals to the dustbin of history.