what makes a republican/Democrat

I was close to the unabomber too. Cool

The unabomber is a great poker player. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[lastchance]

Center on econonmics, -1.59 Libertarian. Sounds about right. I believe in the free market, but it's not the solution to everything. And I'm not religious, plus I'm in high school.

[LargeCents]

Nice writeup, jt1!

I think you have a lot of good ideas there. These categorizations of characteristics -- "Republican" or "Democrat" -- seem quite arbitrary. IMO, that's an artifact of a two-party system. We've got to put all human concerns into two categories. That's quite an oversimplification of the human condition! But, that's the system in place. I don't have an answer, it just strikes me as quite a problem.

Republicans have picked up quite a bit of steam carrying the "Nationalism" flag. Are you "for the U.S." or "against the U.S."? Simple choice for simple minds.

The Democrats need better leadership, organization and unification. The problem with the Democrats is that there is no strong voice or unifying cause. I choke on my vomit a little as I vote for pencil necks like Kerry or Gore. At least Bush has some balls, even if he is a shifty-eyed weasel. I hope next time the Democrats put up a candidate, he'll show some strength and courage of conviction, without squawking like a chicken like Dean in the last election. Give us some charisma. Sad to say, but the issues don't really matter as much as the voice delivering them. The Democrats don't seem to get this, despite the past success of Bill Clinton.

I consider myself a free-market champion, but I'm definitely not a Repulcian. George Bush has done more to [censored] up the budget of this country and mortgage its future than any presdent in history. Bill Clinto was our last free-market president and he was a true-blue Democrat who grew the economy more than it had ever been grown before. Of course, Gee Duh made sure to tank the econmy as soon as he took office.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]

You are a

Social Liberal
(88% permissive)


and an...

Economic Conservative
(88% permissive)


You are best described as a:


Anarchist


You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (143, 143)
modscore: (53, 53)
raw: (5152)


[/ QUOTE ]

Some akwardly worded questions but overall a pretty entertaining test. I'm glad to see myself right up there next to good old Ted K.

Who is that guy from the 18th century right next to Ted?

[ QUOTE ]
I hope next time the Democrats put up a candidate, he'll show some strength and courage of conviction, without squawking like a chicken like Dean in the last election.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really sucked that his "squawk" was taken out of context. Did you ever see the real version of that memorable scream? The audience barely heard it because people were yelling so loud. It's a shame that cost him the Democratic nomination -- he definitely had the testicular fortitude of which you speak.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is that guy from the 18th century right next to Ted?

[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like Thomas Jefferson to me. And is that Ted Nugent at the top-middle? If so, cool!

I guess I'm a libertarian now...

[jj_frap]

I don't necessarily like your associating nationalism with conservatism:

I'm a civil libertarian and a social democrat, and I'm extremely nationalistic in that I don't want Washington or Beijing to lay so much as a finger on our policies, on our economy, or on our natural resources. To be fair, I also favour fair free trade with like-minded nations and I favour restricting non-refugee immigration only based on the level of covert operations and spying that their country's government undertakes (which would make life miserable for a Russian, Chinese, or American seeking Canadian citizenship) and on the prominence of anti-secular religious fundamentalism in their country of origin (which means that I'd favour being strict on immigrants from the U.S., the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, a few African Nations, and North Korea (Yes, Juche counts as a religion...Although the possbility of North Korean immigrants is so slim as to make the issue irrelevant.).

Similarly, the Tibetan-Government-In-Exile is run by the extremely nationalistic National Democratic Party (not to be confused with a neo-Nazi German party of the same name), whose views are textbook civil libertarian and democratic socialist. Nationalism, in India, meanwhile, is common among everyone from Hindu fundamentalists (religious nationalism) to Gandhi-loving Congress supporters (secular nationalism) to Stalinists (again, secular). Finally, nationalists in China tend to hold very authoritarian political view points ranging from Maoism (common among nationalists on the Mainland) to ultra-conservatism (Oddly, conservatives and capitalists in Hong Kong are Beijing's biggest allies there, while liberals, socialists, and civil libertarians favour centrist and leftist parties andorganisations dedicated to universal suffrage, the protection of civil liberties and human rights, a welfare state, and full democracy) while Taiwan features Taiwanese nationalists who are slightly left-leaning centrists and more socially liberal than conservatives and pan-Chinese nationalists with extremely right-wing and authoritarian views, as the original anti-communists in the Kuomintang and its fascist allies are now in bed with Beijing (as both sides have become less about ideology and more about authoritarianism and Chinese natonalism), who would give these crooks more power, more money, and more status than an independent Taiwan would give them. As an aside, it is my opinion that Taiwanese nationalists are making a huge mistake in trusting Washington: The KMT vs. CCP reality ended the day Lee Teng-hui started running the show (I do not feel like delving into Lee Teng-hui's politics and the fracturing of the Kuomintang that resulted thereby), and corporate America and its lobbyists control both political parties in the U.S. These greedy chumos want a China where socialism exists in name only (Maoism was as bad for them as it was for the Chinese people), where labour rights are non-existent, and where people serve only as a cheap labour for wealthy Western parasites: The corrupt thugs in the C"C"P are more than willing to accomodate them, as they have moved from the evil of Stalinism to the evil of crony capitalism with vaguely socialist trappings.

Holy crap! I just ranted about Chinese politics as interpreted by Hong Kong's far-left. :-P

On topic:

Republicans: Bigoted lunatics
Democrats: Spineless girly-men

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope next time the Democrats put up a candidate, he'll show some strength and courage of conviction, without squawking like a chicken like Dean in the last election.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really sucked that his "squawk" was taken out of context. Did you ever see the real version of that memorable scream? The audience barely heard it because people were yelling so loud. It's a shame that cost him the Democratic nomination -- he definitely had the testicular fortitude of which you speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link, KipBond.

Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything for me. I've never been much for pep-rally atmospheres. The best I can figure, this offering is just a rehash with the squawk edited/muted. But, I'll concede that the "mainstream media" squawk was certainly enhanced and amplified.

The link still shows me a man, begging and pleading, but without confidence or focussed conviction. I don't know Dean well, but he comes off to me to be just as much of a weasel as GWB. Trading a weasel for a weasel doesn't inspire me. We need some real leaders.