Take a step back

[GSTamral]

Most people are blinded by a political choice or party, and lend a blind eye to the trangressions of it, focusing instead only on cheering them on, like a football team.

We need a football game or something between the Republicans and the Democrats. It's sure to be a huge draw. The following is as frenzied and mindless as your typical college, and there's sure to be one hell of a tailgate.

Honestly, to be so staunchly behind a party or a political affiliation without regard to anything else, must be a truly blissful ignorance.

How many republicans point out Reagan's dealings in the Iran Contra affair as a black mark?
How many democrats look at Bill Clinton's lack of honestly under oath as a fault, let alone an offense?
How many republicans love to rush to point out that in this country's history, we've used WMD twice, both decisions made by democrats?
How many democrats return to point out the unnecessary war we are currently in, but hesitate to put the same moniker on the Kennedy clan for Vietnam, because he is so beloved in their eyes?

Such ignorance to stow such pride in a party as to spend all this time doing nothing but supporting your own candidate with known partisan sources.

To their credit, of most republicans I see on this board, only one (Edine) quoted places like the national review for an actual serious post. On the flip side I cannot say the same.

Some people need to take a step back before they lend a mindless support to either side, because frankly, it's quite scary. People falling headfirst for spin and propaganda for either side is not so different than what the German people did in the 30's, and a lot of good that did.

Yes, I know, both sides will argue its all the cause of the other, so shut that argument the fuck up before it starts. It doesn't lead anywhere.

The complete and utter lack of ontological reasoning by some of the mindless is quite frustrating. It's one side, their side, and nothing else, and they won't shut up until they have thoroughly googled you to death. Almost like talking to a wall. Wait, it is like talking to a wall.

I hate democrats because they like high taxes and affirmative action. They drop that and they got me.

- Arkans

[Tsa`ah]

Not an attack really, but I'm surprised you posted that. You have had numerous occurrences of blind support for the GOP.

I'm curious, why in the last two weeks have you actually had something negative to say about republicans?

[Disrupture]

I'm staunchly behind Libertarians, but I don't think it's bad to be firmly behind a political party.

Although it still scares me when Republicans say they like Bush. I mean, c'mon, the Republican party has better to offer than him, don't they? I might acctually vote Republican if they could get a decent candidate up.

[GSTamral]

Democrats do not necessarily favor high taxes historically. Eisenhower, a republican has the honor of having the highest tax bracket in the US at 92%.

Right now, democrats currently favor inheritance taxes, higher tax amounts for the rich, and higher corporate taxes. They also favor tax penalties for married couples with two household incomes.

I dislike affirmative action as well. I find it to be reverse racism. From a housing perspective, all poor should be treated equal, not based on color, and from a job perspective, no employer should have to higher lesser people to meet a skin color or race quota.

On taxes I favor lowered taxes and lowered corporate taxes, because that helps to fuel expansion.

I dislike the inheritance tax because it destroys small business in america, and it is a form of double taxation.

I dislike HMO's and believe that healthcare should be socialized to a degree, but not before caps on lawsuits are put into place. I believe republican support of HMO's is one of the primary reasons healthcare is such a large issue in the United States.

As a smoker, I believe if I contract cancer, its my own damn fault, and it takes a true shithead to sue the tobacco company for their own stupidity. It's like suing budweiser for you killing someone while intoxicated behind the wheel.

I dislike our current education system. We just continue to throw money at it as though it will make it work. Schools in the US suck ass. Students are getting stupider and stupider, and all we do is throw money at the problem as though it will solve all.

I dislike unions in general as they are practiced today. I believe that unions have become too powerful, especially some unions, such as the teachers union, in which incompetent teachers cannot be fired or dismissed. I believe this issue to be a fundamental weakness of the democratic party, because in order to secure votes from teachers each election, they turn a blind eye to the troubles of children's education.

I believe the last moral and good man to serve as president was Jimmy Carter. I cannot vote for Kerry because he and Kennedy were instrumental in preventing Carter from getting anything done. He stabbed a truly good, kind man in the back for his own political aspirations. I have no doubt he will continue.

I cannot vote for Bush because I do not think he has surrounded himself with competant people, and I don't trust his foreign policy. While I will agree he is a tougher president in dealing with terrorism, he will do nothing to fix the root cause of the terrorism.

But my choices are based on the issues, the end of which don't put me squarely in either corner. I see too much I'm voting for Kerry because I hate Bush, or, I always vote republican, or I always vote democrat, and I take pride that registration in my town for democrats is up 500%, etc...

I have made much criticism of the numbers Kerry had in his plan for America, yet the only defense anyone could muster for his estimations was to google the fact that some of his claims had been done before, as though this gives instant credibility to everything.

Do some of you people (both sides) even know what your own candidate stands for? what their claims are? the validity of these claims?

Kerry is right that Bush likely has not been honest with Americans as to the true reason we went into Iraq. The problem is he hasn't shown himself to be dignified and honest either. Don't overlook one set of faults in the name of partisanship. it's flat out fucking stupid.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I hate democrats because they like high taxes and affirmative action. They drop that and they got me.>>

More like better taxes. Affirmitive Action can definitely fuck off, though.

- Democrat.

[Betheny]

I'm not for more taxes, I'm for fair taxes. I'm also not for 'affirmative action', but I'm for equal rights for all.

Also, I'm FOR making citizenship harder to get, and I'm 100% for taking care of our OWN people above taking care of others.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Not an attack really, but I'm surprised you posted that. You have had numerous occurrences of blind support for the GOP.
>>>

I have never lent blind support to either party. While my own beliefs do make me tend to vote Republican moreso than Democrat, especially because I am a fiscal conservative, do not mistake defending the ideals of conservatisms with supporting the GOP.

I never liked Bush. I always gave him credit where I believed it was due, in that was a very strong leader, and he did have an ability to lead, even if that leadership isn't taking us in the right direction. But then I don't dislike Bush either. I will defend him from hateful lies and things that are published to an obvious bias, but I do that the same way I would question the intelligence of anyone who would buy into whatever he said. What you may never have noticed, due to past arguments, was that I was EQUALLY critical of Edine for his blind support of one side as I was of some of your views.

Of my 4 favorite presidents in the 20th century, 2 of them are democrats.
FDR, Ike, Reagan and Carter. I have tremendous respect for other democrats, even though I have fundamental disagreements with them. I do like John Edwards. I very much liked the ways of Adlai Stevenson. I didn't mind Bush Sr, but I disliked Bill Clinton.

I do not like John Kerry. I do not like Dick Cheney. I do not dislike Bush, but I question the his intelligence, his cabinet (except Colin Powell) and the direction he is taking us.

I'm not going to kid you and say I'm in the middle of the fence. I'd say about 70% of the time I will end up voting Republican, about 20% of the time I will vote for a democrat, and about 10% for a third party candidate, or third party initiative (mostly on the local and district level). But I do vote based on the issues, and not by party.

And I would venture to say much of the partisan talk and bashing done probably does little to negative on independants, who could see the hate and move away from it.

I would like to see someone defend John Kerry's plan for America as being something other than a container full of bullshit. We've already defined Bush's plan and results as crap, but they will always tell us what we want to hear. That's the job of any candidate. Because they know most of America will be stupid enough to buy it.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Affirmitive Action can definitely fuck off, though.
>>>>

Just wait till you apply to colleges and see the splits. Average Asian in my freshman class at Duke was a 1460 SAT before the curve was in place. Average white person was around 1390. Average black person was closer to 1200. Average Hispanic was about 20 points below that. How many more qualified people were turned aside to meet a racial quota?

And don't worry, it gets even worse when you get to the job market.

[Ilvane]

I'm actually more moderate than I may seem on the boards. If the Republicans put someone up like John McCain I may vote Republican.

I agree that we should also be taking care of our citizens before we are giving aid, schooling and health care to non-citizens.

I do think that affirmative action is a good thing..because otherwise, all you would have in colleges would be white men.

-A

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by GSTamral

I dislike the inheritance tax because it destroys small business in america, and it is a form of double taxation.


The way our system currently works is that everything is valued at the time of death. Basically, if the total value of all items in the estate is over X (no clue what X is this year. A million?) , the estate must pay taxes on the total value of the estate OVER X. Those who inherit from the estate take over the basis at the time of death. So, if I inherit some Microsoft stock that someone paid $1,000 for in the 80s, and it was worth $500,000 the day he died, my basis in the stock is $500,000.

Removal of the estate tax is a bit tricky. What would likely happen then is that those who inherit would also inherit the deceased's basis in the property. That same Microsoft stock would now have a basis of $1,000.

If I decide to sell the stock 10 years from now when it is worth $1 million, under the first situation I listed, I will pay tax on $500,000. In the second situation, I will pay tax on $999,000, assuming that the person I inherited from kept good enough records that I could track it. If I could not figure out when and for how much the stock was originally purchased, I would have to pay taxes on the entire amount of sale (which in this case is negligible).

Calling it "double taxation" is not entirely accurate. If I have purchased anything that has increased in value during my life, I have not paid taxes on the portion of value over what I originally paid. The basis gets bumped at my death, and my children will not pay taxes on that portion either. My estate will pay taxes on some of it if the total value of my estate is over the current year exemption amount.

Basically, what I'm saying is that having the inheritance tax causes problems, but not having it would cause problems as well.

I'm all for bumping the exemption amount, and lowering the rate. This would make it easier to keep small businesses family owned, and not cause the record keeping nightmare that removing it entirely would.

Useless fact - Did you know that 2010 is slated to be a year with no inheritance tax at all? Unfortunately, we didn't think farther ahead, and the tax comes back into existance in 2011. Anyone else foresee a few suicides on December 31, 2010?

Jorddyn, sorry, I'm a boring accountant

[Bobmuhthol]

<<because otherwise, all you would have in colleges would be white men.>>

Making you racist. You should be concerned with who's best suited, not who deserves special treatment for being a minority.

[Jazuela]

I can't find a candidate who supports the things I support, and wants to decrease or eliminate the things I want decreased or eliminated.

Or even someone who comes close. I'll find someone I can agree with on a bucket of things - and then I get to one of the "big deal issues" I care about and see that he's opposed to it. NEXT!

There are dozens of candidates for this election - not just the dems and republicans. And not a single one stands for the things I believe in.

1) The whole smoking issue: Either ban it, or tell the individual states to can it on the "sin tax" crap. We're being taxed up the ass, and THEN they slap us with a state sales tax on top of it all. Last time that happened, a bunch of yahoos dumped a boatload of tea in the Boston Harbor. It's called Taxation without Representation and it's illegal. But the Feds pretend they don't notice, and all this does is make feeding your addiction more expensive. It does NOT get rid of the addiction.

2) Reproductive Rights - Women have the unique physiology that causes them to be the only gender to endure pregnancy and childbirth. Until science can change that, women should maintain the right to do so - or not do so - as they see fit.

3) Mandatory parenting classes for all new parents, regardless of social class or economic status.

4) Tax the shit out of imports to the country supplied by companies based in the USA. If they want to BE American companies, they can damned well manufacture here, using American citizens and paying them a living wage. And yeah - I'm willing to shell out the extra cash for a decent pair of trousers if I can be ensured that the company that makes them, does so here in the states, in a safe work environment. Unfortunately I don't know of any such company, so I'm stuck buying imports like the rest of us.

5) Redesign federal subsidies to agrobusiness. Give less support to big corporate structures and more support to local and family-owned farms, with emphasis on organics and lower toxicity of pestacide use.

6) I support HMOs, IF they are structured to benefit patient/physician relationships and not the bottom line. Some succeed at this - use those as a model for the rest of them.

7) Call in all the international debts, and pay back our own. Stop categorizing debts to justify not paying them. If you have a surplus here, take that money and pay the debt back over there.

8) International trade needs to be gutted and rewritten from scratch. It's just too convoluted now and there are too few people earning too much money, and the end-user and worker are the ones who get the shaft.

9) Diplomatic relations: Everyone hates us. Some of them actually have a good reason to hate us. How about we take a listen to what all these USA-bashers are saying - read between the lines - and work on our delivery a bit more? We're a damned fine country, all things considered, and compared to so much of the rest of the world. But we totally SUCK at being a decent neighbor.

10) Return to Workfare to replace welfare. Give welfare recipients some dignity, while at the same time encouraging them to be productive and contribute to society instead of being a burden.

What it all boils down to, is that we need to remember this is a very small planet. And we are all stuck here, and we need to figure out how to make the planet spin without us sticking a pole in the spokes. We just can't go around being the bully on the block without some day getting a visit from an angry lynch mob. The lynch mob of this planet would likely consist of Mother Nature leading the group - telling us we've done QUITE enough gutting of forests and building on sand and spewing toxins into the ground and caging up baby cows for our veal cutlets, and it's time to give it a rest. If we survive a pissed off Mama Nature, THEN we can worry about the various other humans who have issues with us.

I don't want to be there that day.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<because otherwise, all you would have in colleges would be white men.>>

Making you racist. You should be concerned with who's best suited, not who deserves special treatment for being a minority. Correction: racist and sexist. I'm very much for affirmative action.

And why isn't education one of the primary goals in this country? I will never understand that.
Mandatory parenting classes...now I'll agree with that.

[GSTamral]

Tell me something Darkelfvoid.

You're going to pay someone to design your new spaceship. If something goes wrong, it could mean big trouble.

Do you
a) hire only the most qualified people, regardless of age, sex, or nationality?
b) hire a mix, disqualifying some qualified people for lesser qualified people to meet a quota of race, gender and nationality?

It's equally sad that some people who are better qualified to go to some schools get rejected so a racial quota can be made. Merit is the only basis. The system should be colorblind.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
I always gave him credit where I believed it was due, in that was a very strong leader, and he did have an ability to lead, even if that leadership isn't taking us in the right directionYeah, he drove us into a wall, but he didn't even blink!

[Drew2]

Avoiding making any blanket statements regarding certain races, a colorblind system wouldn't work because there are too many stupid people in this country.

[GSTamral]

So did Clinton, in Somalia
So did Reno, in Waco
So did Reagan, in Iran
So did Carter, in Iran
so did Kennedy, in Vietnam
so did Nixon, with Watergate.

Yet oddly, I don't see you being critical in any instance of your own party making a mistake.....

well shit, doesn't that take some of the sting out of that statement? I once saw a funny comic on racism. A black man was coming to bat, with a white racist fan stating that he cannot believe his team got an incompetant monkey for their team. The player hits a home run, so the fan then states that all that the apes are good for are brute muscle.

Anything can be turned to an insult or attack with the proper spin. It's whats behind the argument that lends it validity. If you're going to be one sided about it on a partisan level, well then, feel free. This thread is devoted to people like you.

[DeV]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Tell me something Darkelfvoid.

You're going to pay someone to design your new spaceship. If something goes wrong, it could mean big trouble.

Do you
a) hire only the most qualified people, regardless of age, sex, or nationality?
b) hire a mix, disqualifying some qualified people for lesser qualified people to meet a quota of race, gender and nationality?
Personally, I want the best qualified from a pool of candidates regardless of race, sex, class, socio-economic background... you get the drift. I'm not racist, sexist or prejudiced when it comes to letting the best qualified get ahead, but does that mean the next man is as open-minded as me? Yes, Tamral I agree the system is fucked up, but no one has yet to come up with a better idea.

Can you tell me why women are still earning 77 cents for every dollar a man earns?

[TheRoseLady]

Tamral,

This is the PC. I understand why you posted what you did, and I could think of several people who came to mind...but the fact still remains that this is not a serious site dedicated to intense discourse on the candidates for president.

While you might yearn to assert your views on various positions and expect to be challenged by likeminded people to your expectations, you're not in the right place.

While I can understand that you don't appreciate people that "Google" and that you have articulated that in a rather condescending manner, more than once. Again, you're in the wrong place for the sort of political debate I think you are wanting.

Have you ever once posted, or even pointed out to people (who seriously may not even realize) that their sources are historically biased and directed them to sources that are generally recognized as non-partisan?

Many of us are average people who have taken an intense interest in this election. ANY voice, ANY interest shown by anyone should be accepted and encouraged. Not everyone is a Poli-Sci major. But that doesn't mean that opinions and viewpoints (even if they are from biased sources) aren't welcomed. Even if you don't think that people should show "blind" support of a party over another, they are in fact entitled to just that. Perhaps to that person it's not "blind" support but informed. Who are you to decide?

Yes I get exasperated by posts that make me want to shake the person by the shoulders and say, "My god - how can you not see..." but it's always good to remember that this is the PC.

Many of us are actually friends, and while our politics may differ - at the end of the day - we still respect one another.

I realize that you will take exception to this post but it's not meant to be argumentative. I felt that it needed to be said.

[Betheny]

I normally don't object to political stuff, because I just ignore most of it, but you know... you really can't post a bunch of this stuff on boards that have a totally unrelated subject matter and expect people to pay attention to it.

I admire your tenacity, but really, I can guarantee you that 90% of these topics can be rolled all into one, I don't understand what the issue here is. Just let it go; we're not here to have our opinions changed or our minds made up for us.

[GSTamral]

TRL, Rueters and CNN I have always pointed out to be the best people can get nowadays. We don't have a true Walter Cronkite anymore.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
So did Clinton, in Somalia
So did Reno, in Waco
So did Reagan, in Iran
So did Carter, in Iran
so did Kennedy, in Vietnam
so did Nixon, with Watergate.

Yet oddly, I don't see you being critical in any instance of your own party making a mistake.....If you're talking to me, I was quoting the Daily Show, and it was wicked funny.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I'm actually more moderate than I may seem on the boards.

Don't you support Ted Kennedy?

If your answer to that is yes I have a hard time believing you're moderate in anything that pulls any weight.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
I have made much criticism of the numbers Kerry had in his plan for America, yet the only defense anyone could muster for his estimations was to google the fact that some of his claims had been done before, as though this gives instant credibility to everything.

Do some of you people (both sides) even know what your own candidate stands for? what their claims are? the validity of these claims?

Yet the very same can be said of you. Time and time again people have asked you to point out sources or prove your statements. Often you fail to reply or selectively ignore the request. Most of the time you re-direct the focus by starting yet another thread.

Rather absurd to make the above statement when you have the same spots and stripes as the next beast.

Those of us voting Kerry because he is not Bush are as justified as the person voting Bush because he's been in there for 4 years already, or any other reason you can come up with.

The sad fact remains that neither candidate is fit or qualified in the opinion of many people. Yet in this election a third party vote is a vote for Bush. Perhaps not a fully wasted vote, but a vote in favor of someone we don't want. Thus the only alternative to voting for Bush is casting a vote for his most visible opponent.

I would feel more at ease voting libertarian this election, yet if you ask anyone on the street (not the internet where google at one's fingertips) 1 out of 1,000 may be able to name a third party candidate. That is sad, hell ... beyond pathetic. And it's not wholly the fault of the common Joe. It's the fault of the media.

The media, every major outlet, has sold out in many aspects to the two party system. It takes a hell of a wave maker (Perot, Nader) or a novelty like Ventura to even become a small blip on the political radar. While it is the voter's responsibility to educate themselves, we do live in a microwave society. If it's not easy, it's not done. The media doesn't make it any easier. Badnarik and Cobb don't sell on the front page. They don't raise enough eyebrows to be covered on any political segment of broadcast or syndicated news.

Today's society is hand fed what options they have. If you have the cash, you can tell the people how to vote, you can become an option. If you take the high road, if you're a moral person, if you're the good guy ... You may as well just stand in the corner and keep your mouth shut.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Can you tell me why women are still earning 77 cents for every dollar a man earns?>>

That's complete bullshit and can not be backed up at all.

[Tsa`ah]

Actually Bob, it can be backed up.

Research it and find the break downs from state to state.

The higher up you go, the bigger the gap.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Can you tell me why women are still earning 77 cents for every dollar a man earns?>>

That's complete bullshit and can not be backed up at all. Tsa'ah beat me to it. To reiterate, it can and has.

[Back]

Sorry, I didn’t read all this. I’m inbetween The Wire and Family Bonds.

I just want to say this. Tamral thinks that I think Kerry has a magic wand. I wish he did. The guy who comes up for office who does has my vote and I want nothing more than that to happen. Until then, I am a realist, and while I realize Kerry is the underdog and may not be able to deliver on everything, I still think he is a better candidate than Bush. Period.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Backlash]

[GSTamral]

<<<
and while I realize Kerry is the underdog and may not be able to deliver on everything, I still think he is a better candidate than Bush. Period
>>>

Which is something I can respect fully. It's the blind partisan support for either side that's rather damning.

[Back]

Reading this thread turned me back to PoliticalCompass.com (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). Yep. third time taking this test I fall in the lower left quadrant. But only by 4 across and 1 down from the exact center.

There is a reader list for each quadrant. Of course I get Al Franken and Michael Moore. I also get Tomas Paine and George Orwell. Even some Desmond Tutu. Then I see Nader after Noam Chomsky, and I starting to wonder if a vote for Nader wouldn’t really tell the eastablishment something. Hmm...

[Edited for the wrong url. Good thing I’m not getting paid for this. Yeesh.]

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Backlash]

[Hulkein]

Thomas Paine should never be mentioned in the same sentence as Michael Moore.

[Jenisi]

We really need a "Political" folder...

[Back]

Originally posted by Jenisi
We really need a "Political" folder...

You know... this Board has always had ideological debates. Proof of this, and who won the debates, are the non-racists.

We do have tons of political topics. I guess they really should go under Social as it deals with society on a grassroots level.

Honestly though I do not recall so much political debate four years ago.

[TheRoseLady]

I am 4 across and 3 down from the center, Left Liberal - so I got the same reading list as you Back.

I just picked up the newest book by Michael Moore today.

[Back]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
I am 4 across and 3 down from the center, Left Liberal - so I got the same reading list as you Back.

I just picked up the newest book by Michael Moore today.

Whats interesting is looking at all the spots close to center. Also, obviously, The Dali Lama would fall caticorner to extreme establishment. Oddly, there aren’t many who fall in the lower right quadrant.

[Tsa`ah]

I closed the grid. 3 from the extreme left, 2 down.

Go figure.

[Hulkein]

One left, two up (authoritarian). Right by Pope John Paul and Jacques Chirac.

[Ravenstorm]

Looks like the same as last time: about 5 left, 5 down. Looks like right between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I don't mind being in their company at all.

Raven

[GSTamral]

They need to reword just about every question. Many of those questions are phrased in such a way to shift answers to that lower left quadrant.

I mean, take even question number 1 there. Why not rephrase the question to read more along the lines of:

If economic globalization is accepted, do you think multi-national corporations should exist for the benefit of humanity?

I'd be willing to bet it would change a lot of people's answers there. It certainly would have changed mine.

I tested +4.05 economic, -1.45 social.
In reality I am closer to a +1.45 socially, slightly to the right of John Kerry and a +8 fiscally, well to the right of just about everyone on that list.

[Latrinsorm]

Center line, three clicks down. Yay for moderacy! Or, to be more accurate, yay for bipolar extremism!

[Sean]

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

To the right of the dali lama. Wasn't there a big debate about this poll already on the boards?

Anyway I agree its a bit biased but fun none the less. I'd also like to see it give a no opinion option. There were some things I held middle ground on.

On the original intent of the thread I can see Tamrals point but I think he's too quick to dismiss "the other side." To me it read a lot like an I know both sides do this but you do it more so ha kind of post. I've yet to see anyone really post a policial thread without some sort of agenda. If your agenda is to promote republican beliefs and sway votes using cnn or reuters your intent is pretty much the same as someone using the nationalreview people are just more likely to listen to you. If my goal is to promote the otherside and I use a NYU anti war flier instead of CNN its the same agenda you'll just throw it out because of the source. The day I see someone post a thread just to inform the public without "the agenda" behind it I'll be amazed.

[Keller]

+3.25, -2.05. Social Libertarian. Tell me something I don't know.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Looks like the same as last time: about 5 left, 5 down. Looks like right between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I don't mind being in their company at all.

Raven

That's exactly where I placed too.

[Ilvane]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46

:lol:

-A

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Snapp

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Looks like the same as last time: about 5 left, 5 down. Looks like right between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I don't mind being in their company at all.

Raven

That's exactly where I placed too.

I'm in that neighborhood, as well.

HarmNone

[Cayge]

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

Lower left, near middle. Interesting site.

Authoritarian Right for me. 2 right 4 up.

- Arkans