Far left/far right....

cymatty said:
Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.64

Explain please. :)
Click to expand...

You're fairly middle-of-the-road, but with conservative leanings both socially and economically. I.e., you think that individuals and businesses should have fewer financial restrictions from the government, but the government should be responsibility for enforcing society's moral values.

Am I right?
 
Crispy Pigeon said:
You're fairly middle-of-the-road, but with conservative leanings both socially and economically. I.e., you think that individuals and businesses should have fewer financial restrictions from the government, but the government should be responsibility for enforcing society's moral values.

Am I right?
Click to expand...

Yeah i would say im conservative, agree on the fewer financial restrictions and that morals are very important. :)
 
cleanbluesky said:
Okay, lets have a political compass thread... why not...

I score...
Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

Very similar to Gandhi, I am in good company. Sometimes it seems that the most important values to a person are the ones that we say least about
Click to expand...

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.05

Pretty much dead-centre.

I always thought I had a tolerant personality...
 
Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.08

Hmm, coz I know what that means. I don't understand all this politic crap, cba to take the time to understand either lol.
 
Im -4 Left/Right and -0.1 on the other one. What does that mean, and who do people like me normally vote for (not telling who i vote!) Cheers.
 
cleanbluesky said:
I don't think the popularity of the dictator has anything to do with the situation, if there was an authoritarian leader in power and a terrorists who wanted to assert their views I believe it would merely be a struggle between two authoritarian political elements... especially as terrorists are often likely to use violence against their own who do not conform adequetely to the wishes of the terrorist leadership... if said terrorists changed their attitude and became liberal after assuming leadership it does not mean that they were liberal all along, or that all of their attitudes are liberal
Click to expand...
Are 'terrorists' not just what the people who are fighting against them call freedom fighters? ;)
 
Arcade Fire said:
Are 'terrorists' not just what the people who are fighting against them call freedom fighters? ;)
Click to expand...

The question has oft been asked, although I would say that 'freedom fighter' is a construction to justify terrorism to the masses... a person may fight for their freedom, an organisation with a heirarchy committs terrorism
 
I'd say that often, the word 'terrorist' is used to justify the use of (more) military force against a country that is said to be harbouring 'terrorist' organisations. Any resistance to aforementioned military action is then labeled as 'terrorism', even when it's clearly a direct consequence of the fact that you just invaded their country.

For example, the United States government labeled the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre which killed almost 3,000 innocent people as an act of terrorism. When they imposed drastic economic sanctions on Cuba in the 1960s against the will of the UN, which caused the deaths of millions of innocent Cubans, that wasn't an act of terrorism. I think that this is, at the very least, an interesting interpretation of the word 'terrorism'.
 
Arcade Fire said:
I'd say that often, the word 'terrorist' is used to justify the use of (more) military force against a country that is said to be harbouring 'terrorist' organisations. Any resistance to aforementioned military action is then labeled as 'terrorism', even when it's clearly a direct consequence of the fact that you just invaded their country.

For example, the United States government labeled the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre which killed almost 3,000 innocent people as an act of terrorism. When they imposed drastic economic sanctions on Cuba in the 1960s against the will of the UN, which caused the deaths of millions of innocent Cubans, that wasn't an act of terrorism. I think that this is, at the very least, an interesting interpretation of the word 'terrorism'.
Click to expand...

I just wanna know why we can't all stop ******* in our back yards.

why do some countrys feel the need to fund rebles/terrorists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom