Pretty neat.

The following are your scores. They are based on a gradual range of 0 to 12. For instance, a Conservative/Progressive score of 3 and 0 will both yield a result of social conservative, yet 0 would be an extreme conservative and 3 a moderate conservative

Conservative/Progressive score: 9
You are a social progressive. You generally consider yourself a humanist first. You probably think that religion and patriotism go too far in society. You probably consider yourself to be a citizen of Earth first rather than a citizen of your country.

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 0
You're a Capitalist Purist. You believe that the market should be completely free, and that the invisible hand of the market will make sure that the people get what they want and will do it in the most efficient way possible. You believe in small government, less taxes, and more privatization.

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 0
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.

Pacifist/Militarist score: 10
You're a Militarist. You believe that since the United States has so much power in the world, it has a responsibility to keep the world safe. You think that if the US does not exert its power in the world, it may eventually lose its power, and that we can not look weak in the face of terrorists, and must take them out where they live.

The last one is a little bit off, but only a little bit.

just for fun, I started a thread with the two quizzes.

It's refreshing to see someone asking questions on behalf of the Republic instead of the 60%+ of McCain recieving the critical side. It wasn't a surprise to see Obama's camp suppressing the channel in response though.

This suppression against reporters is only a taste of what's to come when the far left tries to push the "fairness doctrine" mess again if they should gain their super majority and presidency. Not to mention suppression of the press is what "regimes" would do.

It's all adding up though. They are the party that supports the goverment thinking/doing for you instead of free thought/action.

There are dark times ahead for the Republic should the socialists err far lefties win a super majority and the presidency.

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Fishermage

People need to be able to say what they mean and mean what they say. We are poised at this moment to elect an unknown because the press did not do it's job.

Here's the thing about the press.

Conservative sites are good at creative journalism. They are successful in riling up people who want to believe that there's some dark secret in Obama's past that will be exposed in dramatic fashion and end with a righteous judgment. The fact is, they have been unable to prove any of it. They simply have you hooked on the search.

True news sources don't feed on these insinuations, and conservatives consider any that don't as 'liberal media'. Conservatives ask questions like "Whay isn't the liberal media covering this?". Well, the answer is, because they'd look like a bunch of schizophrenics addicted to conspiracy theory, that's why. News outlets with any semblance of integrity don't print the 'search' for a story. They print the story itself once it has been legitimized.

 

Here's the thing though.  ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS are all liberal stations that feature more Republican negativity than Democrat.  NBC is Obama nation at the least.  That's leaves maybe one station, Fox, to hold any balance what so ever if one is going to put the tinfoil hat on and call them the "right wing station".  Although Fox has democrats and republicans on the channel  any day of the week.

There is no way you can argue against that and save any credibility DailyBuzz.

What Fox doesn't do is host Moveon ads in its airtime.

There is darkness brewing with tape being suppressed by the LA Times that has Obama meeting with such questionable people.  No doubt people would think very differently if that video was released.

Why should liberals hide if nothing is wrong?

Its kinda funny because isn't Palin doing the same thing (thats shes accusing Obama of) already in Alaska with the windfall tax..... she taking money from the rich (oil companies) and "redistributing it to the poor (her citizens). So in turn is she not a socialist/Marzists?

Originally posted by Nocuma

Its kinda funny because isn't Palin doing the same thing (thats shes accusing Obama of) already in Alaska with the windfall tax..... she taking money from the rich (oil companies) and "redistributing it to the poor (her citizens). So in turn is she not a socialist/Marzists?

To a certain externt, that's true, but the Oil system in Alaska is VERY different than the Income tax system. The Oil system works with Oil companies paying for the right to drill, and essentially taxes on the oil comanies are viewed as payment for those rights. In that sense it is a fee for service issue. That's somewhat socialist (Or more accurately "Georgist"), but not the least bit Marxist.

Obama wants to take the wealth from one group of citizens and directly transfer it to another. that's socialist and Marxist.

So, the issue is once again, of someone compromising with socialist ideas (which is what conservatives do), and outright socialism (which is where liberals go).

I guess it's up to people what they believe in, MORE socialist or LESS socialist.

I don't like either one, but I see a compromiser with socialism to be better than a lover of socialism. I see half a glass of poison as better than a full glass. It's all still poison, though.

Good point.

That being said, nice to see you are admitting Obama is a Marxist/socialist.

For a brief introduction to the ideas of Henry George, good old wikipedia is helpful (en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Henry_George )

Oh, and I also favor taking money from the rich (the government) and giving it to the poor (the people); that makes me more like the "real" Robin Hood, but it sure ain't socialist or Marxist.

Originally posted by Narug

Here's the thing though.  ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS are all liberal stations that feature more Republican negativity than Democrat.  NBC is Obama nation at the least.  That's leaves maybe one station, Fox, to hold any balance what so ever if one is going to put the tinfoil hat on and call them the "right wing station".  Although Fox has democrats and republicans on the channel  any day of the week.

There is no way you can argue against that and save any credibility DailyBuzz.

This has nothing to do with the amount of republican/democrat negativity. As previously stated, Fox News is predisposed to cover McCain in a positive light, just as MSNBC is to cover Obama in a positive light. The rest of the argument is that the balance of the news networks aren't predisposed to either side. They simply report on the actual, legitimate, incidents throughout the campaigns.

McCain has ran a terrible race. News sources have reported it as such. When Obama has made mistakes, the news cycles have refelected it. He has just learned from them early in the primaries, and in turn, hasn't made nearly as many as McCain in the general election. That is why the MSM has been more critical of McCain. It's neither conspiracy nor media bias.

McCain was a media darling for 20 years. They loved him and his 'staright talk'. I did too. I was a McCain fan in 2000. It would be a total lie to say he has ran a solid campaign, though, because he simply hasn't. Don't expect any facet of the media, aside from Fox News, to ignore that.

And again I see the dismissive argument. I don't care if you people think I'm credible or not. Your opinions don't influence the facts.

Originally posted by Fishermage

I'm not saying you are blinded by liberal bias, I am simply saying you are wrong.

My mistake? Having read in your two previous posts directed at me that I was showing bias, I interpreted that as liberal bias since that's the side you were arguing.

I don't know why, nor will I examine your psyche to determine why.

Ahh, come on. There's nothing more dependable than internet psychiatry!

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Fishermage

I'm not saying you are blinded by liberal bias, I am simply saying you are wrong.

My mistake? Having read in your two previous posts directed at me that I was showing bias, I interpreted that as liberal bias since that's the side you were arguing.

I don't know why, nor will I examine your psyche to determine why.

Ahh, come on. There's nothing more dependable than internet psychiatry!

 

LOL. I have to assume you just aren't seeing the same things I am seeing. I would say more likely the same things and perceptions that lead me to BE a libertarian and lead you to BE a liberal are what are producing what you get out of the news.

Where that difference comes from isn't my place to say.

I am disagreeing with you, not dismissing you.

That being said, MY point of view doesn't require me to say things like "liberals  don't like to be challenged" as you are saying about conservatives. Or "liberals are more open-minded."

I see BOTH sides as having individuals who love to be challenged, and both sides have individuals who don't. I see both sides as having individuals who are open-minded and intellectually honest, and both sides having members who don't.

Taking that into account and assuming the general intellectual honesty of BOTH sides, the media seems to have a liberal bias.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Nocuma

Its kinda funny because isn't Palin doing the same thing (thats shes accusing Obama of) already in Alaska with the windfall tax..... she taking money from the rich (oil companies) and "redistributing it to the poor (her citizens). So in turn is she not a socialist/Marzists?

To a certain externt, that's true, but the Oil system in Alaska is VERY different than the Income tax system. The Oil system works with Oil companies paying for the right to drill, and essentially taxes on the oil comanies are viewed as payment for those rights. In that sense it is a fee for service issue. That's somewhat socialist (Or more accurately "Georgist"), but not the least bit Marxist.

Obama wants to take the wealth from one group of citizens and directly transfer it to another. that's socialist and Marxist.

So, the issue is once again, of someone compromising with socialist ideas (which is what conservatives do), and outright socialism (which is where liberals go).

I guess it's up to people what they believe in, MORE socialist or LESS socialist.

I don't like either one, but I see a compromiser with socialism to be better than a lover of socialism. I see half a glass of poison as better than a full glass. It's all still poison, though.

Good point.

That being said, nice to see you are admitting Obama is a Marxist/socialist.

 

For a brief introduction to the ideas of Henry George, good old wikipedia is helpful (en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Henry_George )

I see it more as hes just taking away some of the tax cuts that was given to them(rich) under Bush.

Either way (who ever wins)..... the Gov is still going to take our money and give it out to who they see fit. Only Diff is whos getting more of the money.

Also when they raise the middle class taxes so they can give more tax breaks to the rich... is that not the same thing? Yet you almost never heard these terms being toss around....no where as much as they are now.

Originally posted by Nocuma

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Nocuma

Its kinda funny because isn't Palin doing the same thing (thats shes accusing Obama of) already in Alaska with the windfall tax..... she taking money from the rich (oil companies) and "redistributing it to the poor (her citizens). So in turn is she not a socialist/Marzists?

To a certain externt, that's true, but the Oil system in Alaska is VERY different than the Income tax system. The Oil system works with Oil companies paying for the right to drill, and essentially taxes on the oil comanies are viewed as payment for those rights. In that sense it is a fee for service issue. That's somewhat socialist (Or more accurately "Georgist"), but not the least bit Marxist.

Obama wants to take the wealth from one group of citizens and directly transfer it to another. that's socialist and Marxist.

So, the issue is once again, of someone compromising with socialist ideas (which is what conservatives do), and outright socialism (which is where liberals go).

I guess it's up to people what they believe in, MORE socialist or LESS socialist.

I don't like either one, but I see a compromiser with socialism to be better than a lover of socialism. I see half a glass of poison as better than a full glass. It's all still poison, though.

Good point.

That being said, nice to see you are admitting Obama is a Marxist/socialist.

 

For a brief introduction to the ideas of Henry George, good old wikipedia is helpful (en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Henry_George )

I see it more as hes just taking away some of the tax cuts that was given to them(rich) under Bush.

Either way (who ever wins)..... the Gov is still going to take our money and give it out to who they see fit. Only Diff is whos getting more of the money.

Also when they raise the middle class taxes so they can give more tax breaks to the rich... is that not the same thing? Yet you almost never heard these terms being toss around....no where as much as they are now.

That is because Bush didn't raise taxes on Middle Class Americans.  According to the IRS he lowered the tax rate by around 2-3% on middle class americans and around 6% on the richest 1% of americans.  

But of course that tax break increased tax revenue. 

Originally posted by Cabe2323

Originally posted by Nocuma

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Nocuma

Its kinda funny because isn't Palin doing the same thing (thats shes accusing Obama of) already in Alaska with the windfall tax..... she taking money from the rich (oil companies) and "redistributing it to the poor (her citizens). So in turn is she not a socialist/Marzists?

To a certain externt, that's true, but the Oil system in Alaska is VERY different than the Income tax system. The Oil system works with Oil companies paying for the right to drill, and essentially taxes on the oil comanies are viewed as payment for those rights. In that sense it is a fee for service issue. That's somewhat socialist (Or more accurately "Georgist"), but not the least bit Marxist.

Obama wants to take the wealth from one group of citizens and directly transfer it to another. that's socialist and Marxist.

So, the issue is once again, of someone compromising with socialist ideas (which is what conservatives do), and outright socialism (which is where liberals go).

I guess it's up to people what they believe in, MORE socialist or LESS socialist.

I don't like either one, but I see a compromiser with socialism to be better than a lover of socialism. I see half a glass of poison as better than a full glass. It's all still poison, though.

Good point.

That being said, nice to see you are admitting Obama is a Marxist/socialist.

 

For a brief introduction to the ideas of Henry George, good old wikipedia is helpful (en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Henry_George )

I see it more as hes just taking away some of the tax cuts that was given to them(rich) under Bush.

Either way (who ever wins)..... the Gov is still going to take our money and give it out to who they see fit. Only Diff is whos getting more of the money.

Also when they raise the middle class taxes so they can give more tax breaks to the rich... is that not the same thing? Yet you almost never heard these terms being toss around....no where as much as they are now.

 

That is because Bush didn't raise taxes on Middle Class Americans.  According to the IRS he lowered the tax rate by around 2-3% on middle class americans and around 6% on the richest 1% of americans.  

But of course that tax break increased tax revenue. 

Yup, and when those tax cuts expire, Obama said that he will not renew them. Then, everyone's taxes go up -- rich and middle class. that will erase any tax "cut" they got from Obama.

Actually im willing to bet The new Dem congress will PASS the Bush tax cuts and allow that income to show on the books then , REPEAL them 14 days later as a rider to something else.

Its the govt way to do things. But if you try it you go to jail.

Doesn't anyone else find this ironic?  Joe Biden gets a tough 5 minute interview so the campaign censors that media outlet and insists youtube delete all videos pertaining to the video.  Thats censorship and reduction of the 1st ammendment.  While at the same time you have Sarah Palin being asked the same exact type of questions.  What does the McCain campaign do?  Let here interview more with the same station.  The McCain campaign has not asked for censorship, if they have the media hasn't been abliged to follow.

Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that Obama has interviewed less the Palin has and has only been interviewed by people who rub his back constantly?

It doesn't matter what the questions were, its a matter that the american public needs to know about.  Just like questions asked of Sarah Palin, or questions asked to John McCain.  Why is there a double standard in regards to the Obama campaign?

When I think of media bias and information control, the City of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan always comes to mind.

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

This has nothing to do with the amount of republican/democrat negativity. As previously stated, Fox News is predisposed to cover McCain in a positive light, just as MSNBC is to cover Obama in a positive light. The rest of the argument is that the balance of the news networks aren't predisposed to either side. They simply report on the actual, legitimate, incidents throughout the campaigns.

McCain has ran a terrible race. News sources have reported it as such. When Obama has made mistakes, the news cycles have refelected it. He has just learned from them early in the primaries, and in turn, hasn't made nearly as many as McCain in the general election. That is why the MSM has been more critical of McCain. It's neither conspiracy nor media bias.

McCain was a media darling for 20 years. They loved him and his 'staright talk'. I did too. I was a McCain fan in 2000. It would be a total lie to say he has ran a solid campaign, though, because he simply hasn't. Don't expect any facet of the media, aside from Fox News, to ignore that.

 

And again I see the dismissive argument. I don't care if you people think I'm credible or not. Your opinions don't influence the facts.

It has everything to do with amount.  More amount is more chances for potential voters to only see McCain and Republicans beat up a majority of the time.

The facts are already out there.  McCain is beat up an average of 60%+ of time while spoon fed Obama is beat up only 30%+ average of time.

If they only reported ligitimate issues why is Fox more balanced at an average of 40%+ for each candidate?  I call farse on it only being how campaigns were run.  I've seen more attacks than that.

I've seen things like Palin's clothes attacked.  Clothes that isn't even technically owned by her.

Cries of racism against McCain which aren't true.

I'm not going to go on but had to counter this nonsense it's only because how the candidates have ran their campaigns.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Doesn't anyone else find this ironic?  Joe Biden gets a tough 5 minute interview so the campaign censors that media outlet and insists youtube delete all videos pertaining to the video.  Thats censorship and reduction of the 1st ammendment.  While at the same time you have Sarah Palin being asked the same exact type of questions.  What does the McCain campaign do?  Let here interview more with the same station.  The McCain campaign has not asked for censorship, if they have the media hasn't been abliged to follow.

Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that Obama has interviewed less the Palin has and has only been interviewed by people who rub his back constantly?

It doesn't matter what the questions were, its a matter that the american public needs to know about.  Just like questions asked of Sarah Palin, or questions asked to John McCain.  Why is there a double standard in regards to the Obama campaign?

This interview?

www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sfl-1028-wftv-anchor-biden,0,7492119.story

 This is a far more hostile interview than anything Palin ever faced.  Of course Biden knows what he's doing...

Uhh thats not tough....  If you think thats tough you haven't been watching this election or Sarah Palin.  She was asking questions pertaining to issues with the Obama campaign at hand at that moment.  Things that just rescently hit the news and the Obama campaign has not answered publicly to a news host.  Such as when Biden was talking about a crysis to hit America.  Such as questions pertaining to ACORN.  Such as questions about Wealth Redistribution.

What has the media asked Sarah Palin?  They demonized her for wanting a trooper who tazered her kid out of his position.  They demonized her for using $1500 clothes that didn't even belong to her.  They demonized her for making going home to her family every weekend.  Did they talk to her about policy?  Did they talk about what she has done as a Governor?

The same applies to McCain.  Its not like they go, Hey McCain do you think we were greated as liberators in Iraq?  They actually ask McCain questions pertaining to Palin's personal views.  Its like asking Biden about being a peritioner under Reverend Wright.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Uhh thats not tough....  If you think thats tough you haven't been watching this election or Sarah Palin.  She was asking questions pertaining to issues with the Obama campaign at hand at that moment.  Things that just rescently hit the news and the Obama campaign has not answered publicly to a news host.  Such as when Biden was talking about a crysis to hit America.  Such as questions pertaining to ACORN.  Such as questions about Wealth Redistribution.

Ah, like "Are you a MARXIST?!?"  Uh huh.  That's fair and unbiased journalism, folks.  But asking Sarah Palin if she could think of anything other Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with when she said she could, or asking her about her running mate's record, totally unfair.    

What has the media asked Sarah Palin?  They demonized her for wanting a trooper who tazered her kid out of his position.  They demonized her for using $1500 clothes that didn't even belong to her.  They demonized her for making going home to her family every weekend.  Did they talk to her about policy?  Did they talk about what she has done as a Governor?

Yes.  Saw the interview.  She works with Putin to resolve critical situations in her roll as governor. 

The same applies to McCain.  Its not like they go, Hey McCain do you think we were greated as liberators in Iraq?  They actually ask McCain questions pertaining to Palin's personal views.  Its like asking Biden about being a peritioner under Reverend Wright.

Sure.  Yup.  This was a fair interview, folks.

Too bad I linked to it, so everyone can hear it.