Left wing/right wing

[RTID75]

You are a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 4.7, Libertarian: 1.43

[The Red Baron]

Right 3.12, Libertarian 3.49.

You are a right moderate social libertarian.

Must admit, I thought I'd be less right and more libertarian.

[The Red Baron]

RedJ wrote:

I'd have gone had it not been that toss pot Crow speaking.

The bloke's an a**ehole- even though we probably agree on the EU. An Arthur Scargill de nos jours, who will lead the poor bloody infantry up the same path as Scargill if given the chance.

[RedJ]

That's why I hate the Kitson, Red Baron

[BobG]

Hmmm... I appear to be a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 6.91, Libertarian: 2.57

I think that's a slightly high libertarian score for this thread, but I'm not surprised at all by that. I did tick the box for free access to marijuana. But although the left bit is reasonably high, I am quite surprised it's not higher. So, am I up against the wall then comrades? Bleeding heart liberal then.

What would a Stalinist score I wonder? I might have another go with my left authoritarian hat on. Equally, what would an anarchist score? 'Cos that's what I thought I fundamentally am?

Cheers

BobG

Later: re libertarian: does a higher score mean you are nore or less libertarian then? I'm inclined to 'less', but I'm not sure that's right.

[hoolahoop]

Seems some of you spout what you think you should say rather than what you now know is patently not true .
Incidentally, it didn't give me a title, only that I wasn't one of those that had to think like my forefathers and had to move on..........score 1.72 left, 3.7 libertarian.
Oh and Arthur Scargill was a stupid t**t.
Btw it's amazing how personal success in life plays with some of your subconscious thoughts when taking such a test.

Incidentally , why have none of you posted your Foreign and Cultural scores ?

[hoolahoop]

Filo wrote:

I notice our apparently far right poster`s haven`t had a go! Mr Frost? Hoolahoop?

Scores posted for you now to rip apart.  

[Bentley Bullet]

Bentley Bullet wrote:

I'm +1.72 left and 3.17 libertarian

You and I share almost identical views Hoola.......Is that good or bad?!!

[hoolahoop]

Bentley Bullet wrote:

Bentley Bullet wrote:

I'm +1.72 left and 3.17 libertarian

You and I share almost identical views Hoola.......Is that good or bad?!!

Of course it's good , you are a realist and understand it is not in the human nature to be completely egalitarian.
Many of those on here that have a high 'Left' score are probably the one's who have benefited most from that very fact.........life is never simple and never equal.
Release the artificial 'forced' equality grip and quite naturally folk slip into more natural traits; Russia is a perfect example , China will eventually follow.
Politics is like a circle there is very little difference on the effects of the working man be it a far Right or Left Ruling party. The common man will suffer from the 'dumbing down' enforced upon them.
Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany, both opposite extremes that brought about fear and poverty for the weaker in society.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

You are a center-left social moderate.
Left: 1.17, Authoritarian: 0.21

Not as right wing as I expected.  I expect my strong pro gay an pro abortion thoughts are the reasoning for that.

[Beltonian]

65 and still to the left. 5.86 left and 0.59 libertarian, and they say you mellow with age.

[jucyberry]

Foreign Policy:...- 3.63.. Non-interventionalist. I am quite happy be a pacifist..


And aparently I come out as a cultural liberal.. -5.24

I believe people have the right to follow their own beliefs, both in their god , gender, sexuality and body.

I don't believe in guns and I certainly don't believe ANY country has the right to trundle over another for gain.

Perhaps I am too idealistic, because I want to live in a world that will never exist.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Bentley Bullet wrote:

I'm half Librarian and half Alsatian.

That means half your books are dog-eared.

[bobjimwilly]

\"You are a left social moderate.\"
Left: 5.26, Authoritarian: 0.08

Foreign Policy: -0.43 (slightly non-interventionalist?)
Culture: -4.85 (liberal)

 

Red cross: Your Views
Blue cross: Age 18 to 29, Male, United Kingdom, White/Caucasian, UK - Labour (1,856)

[BillyStubbsTears]

jucyberry wrote:

Foreign Policy:...- 3.63.. Non-interventionalist. I am quite happy be a pacifist..


And aparently I come out as a cultural liberal.. -5.24

I believe people have the right to follow their own beliefs, both in their god , gender, sexuality and body.

I don't believe in guns and I certainly don't believe ANY country has the right to trundle over another for gain.

Perhaps I am too idealistic, because I want to live in a world that will never exist.

I have an issue with the whole non-intervionist thing. It's too easy to appear morally pure by condemning interventions in other countries' affairs.

Iraq was an unmitigated disaster. But was Blair wrong to send the troops into Sierra Leone? Or to send the bombers in to stop the Serb militias turning Pristina into another Srebrenica?

In another age, say we had not gone to war with Hitler after the invasion of Poland. Poland then becomes absorbed into Germany. But then say we get unquestionable evidence of Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmno, Belzec. Would it have been the morally correct thing to do for us to say, \"Nothing to do with us. Each country can do what they want inside their own borders.\"?

[RedJ]

That's why it's such a complex argument, BST.

[River Don]

You are a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 4.41, Libertarian: 1.75

And apparently I'm pretty culturally liberal at -5.98.

[jucyberry]

Sadly as I said, I know I am too idealistic, I also know that where there is great evil there is a duty to help.I am also however very much aware that the greedy leaders are very selective who they help... Lets face it, if there is oil in them there hills the U.S and the U.K are in like flynn..Unless I have missed it i haven't seen much in the way of Mugabe sorting going on.............

If the only wealth in a country is the poor suffering people the silence is deafening.

[hoolahoop]

jucyberry wrote:

Sadly as I said, I know I am too idealistic, I also know that where there is great evil there is a duty to help.I am also however very much aware that the greedy leaders are very selective who they help... Lets face it, if there is oil in them there hills the U.S and the U.K are in like flynn..Unless I have missed it i haven't seen much in the way of Mugabe sorting going on.............

If the only wealth in a country is the poor suffering people the silence is deafening.

I must say that I agree with BST on this one but you make a very good point about the morality of intervening only on a religious, political and economic basis only. If the intervention is purely to gain an advantage economically or on other grounds then I view this as totally immoral.
The very fact that no nation on earth feels it pertinent to intervene in a more emphatic way against the likes of Mugabe is nothing less than disgraceful.  :angry:

[jucyberry]

As I say, there is nothing to gain from defeating Mugabe.. No oil fields to seize, no American interests being comprimised..No assets to be stripprd...(I mean held for the greater good)

Nothing at all to gain but the safety and freedom of a people ground into the dirt by a vicious despot..

But then, for our leaders, (not our armed forces), is there truly anything remotely humanitarian about modern war?

[Thinwhiteduke]

Dave is a center-left moderate social libertarian. He is also a foreign policy centrist and culturally moderate. Dave's scores (from 0 to 10):


Economic issues:         +2.52 left
Social issues:           +1.25 libertarian
Foreign policy:          +0.73 neo-con
Cultural identification: +0.75 liberal

[BillyStubbsTears]

jucyberry wrote:

As I say, there is nothing to gain from defeating Mugabe.. No oil fields to seize, no American interests being comprimised..No assets to be stripprd...(I mean held for the greater good)

Nothing at all to gain but the safety and freedom of a people ground into the dirt by a vicious despot..

But then, for our leaders, (not our armed forces), is there truly anything remotely humanitarian about modern war?

I think you're being a bit to simplistic on this if you'll forgive me Deb.

The tragedy of Blair was that he started off with precisely the approach that you (and I) would like to see.

There was no strategic or natural resource incentive in going into Sierra Leone, but Britain, under Blair, did it because we felt it was obscene to stand aside and watch 10s of thousands of people being chopped up with machetes by militia gangs. It was a response to the pathetic hand-sitting that the West had done in Rwanda when we stood by wringing our hands and watching as a million people were massacred, and perhaps half a million women gang-raped in 3 months of carnage.

And then in Kosovo. There was no strategic gain to going in there. But Blair and Clinton were (I believe) genuinely disgusted by the fact that the EU (including our own wonderful Major Govt) had sat and watched a geonocide on their own doorstep in Bosnia in the early 90s, and done nothing to stop it. And Blair and Clinton made damn sure that it wasn't going to happen on their watch, by bombing Belgrade to until they reined in their militias in Kosovo.

If Major had done that in 91, 100,000 deaths might have been averted in Bosnia.

Sierra Leone and Kosovo were supposed to send a message that in the post-Cold War world, Clinton's USA and Blair's UK would smack you down hard if you tried those games again.

And then the tragedy was that Blair got swept up along with a bunch of neo-con war criminals who thought principles were for fags and all that mattered was projecting power in pursuit of national interests. And after 9/11 and then Iraq, the whole concept of intervention to stop bestial thugs and their medieval atrocities has been put back by a half a century.

So we sit back and watch Mugabe, we sit back and watch Darfur, and while the biggest war since 1945 was being played out in Congo, with maybe 5 million people killed in the last decade, we sat back and ignored it.

It's enough to make you weep. And to hope that there is a special circle of Hell set aside for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld when they finally do the decent thing and fcuk off from this earth.

[hoolahoop]

Good post Billy , can I light the fire that burns the fookers ? Unusually I agree with every word of your post and the thought of what happened and is continuing to happen there and elsewhere angers me intensely.
It should any decent human being. Bullies and murderers will never be afraid of non-interventionists and pacifists, rather they just profit by it .

[Thinwhiteduke]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

jucyberry wrote:

As I say, there is nothing to gain from defeating Mugabe.. No oil fields to seize, no American interests being comprimised..No assets to be stripprd...(I mean held for the greater good)

Nothing at all to gain but the safety and freedom of a people ground into the dirt by a vicious despot..

But then, for our leaders, (not our armed forces), is there truly anything remotely humanitarian about modern war?

I think you're being a bit to simplistic on this if you'll forgive me Deb.

The tragedy of Blair was that he started off with precisely the approach that you (and I) would like to see.

There was no strategic or natural resource incentive in going into Sierra Leone, but Britain, under Blair, did it because we felt it was obscene to stand aside and watch 10s of thousands of people being chopped up with machetes by militia gangs. It was a response to the pathetic hand-sitting that the West had done in Rwanda when we stood by wringing our hands and watching as a million people were massacred, and perhaps half a million women gang-raped in 3 months of carnage.

And then in Kosovo. There was no strategic gain to going in there. But Blair and Clinton were (I believe) genuinely disgusted by the fact that the EU (including our own wonderful Major Govt) had sat and watched a geonocide on their own doorstep in Bosnia in the early 90s, and done nothing to stop it. And Blair and Clinton made damn sure that it wasn't going to happen on their watch, by bombing Belgrade to until they reined in their militias in Kosovo.

If Major had done that in 91, 100,000 deaths might have been averted in Bosnia.

Sierra Leone and Kosovo were supposed to send a message that in the post-Cold War world, Clinton's USA and Blair's UK would smack you down hard if you tried those games again.

And then the tragedy was that Blair got swept up along with a bunch of neo-con war criminals who thought principles were for fags and all that mattered was projecting power in pursuit of national interests. And after 9/11 and then Iraq, the whole concept of intervention to stop bestial thugs and their medieval atrocities has been put back by a half a century.

So we sit back and watch Mugabe, we sit back and watch Darfur, and while the biggest war since 1945 was being played out in Congo, with maybe 5 million people killed in the last decade, we sat back and ignored it.

It's enough to make you weep. And to hope that there is a special circle of Hell set aside for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld when they finally do the decent thing and fcuk off from this earth.

The best post Ive read on here for an extremely long time.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly, though I could never pout it down in words so well.

[jucyberry]

I would forgive you anything BST I know that I was being simplistic in the extreme, as I say I want to live in a world that will never exist..Nothing is ever cut and dried, if it was we would be living in a eutopia, instead of this beautiful but messed up world..

[belton rover]

Left 3.19 Authoritarian 0.35

Does that back up the fact that I am not right wing but don't wish Maggie a painful death?

I hope so.

[RedJ]

I don't wish her a painful death, cos that'd probably take a while. I want the bitch gone ASAP.

[BillyStubbsTears]

belton rover wrote:

Left 3.19 Authoritarian 0.35

Does that back up the fact that I am not right wing but don't wish Maggie a painful death?

I hope so.

We've been through this a dozen times comrade.

It doesn't have to be painful. Just a straightforward death would do. Painful and lingering would be the icing on the cake but I know you can't always get what you want.

[Nudga]

I dress to the left, and if anyone dresses to the right, there's some-ert wrong wi yers.

[jucyberry]

Nudga wrote:

I dress to the left, and if anyone dresses to the right, there's some-ert wrong wi yers.

Now if you were cussy you would be saying that you dress neither to the left or right but that you sling it twice over your shoulders and use  it as braces....