-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
D
dullonien
Guest
My results were:
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56
S
shtove
Guest
So I'm the moderate around here?
Economic Left/Right: 2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18
p.s. look where Gordon Brown is - right wing authoritarian! I actually think that's true.
Economic Left/Right: 2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18
p.s. look where Gordon Brown is - right wing authoritarian! I actually think that's true.
M
mohamed_ali12
Guest
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95
That pretty much makes me Gandhi
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95
That pretty much makes me Gandhi
R
redunderthebed
Guest
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74
P
Prestwick
Guest
Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
I think the biggest shock isn't where Gordon Brown is (who knew the leader of what is now a neo-thatcherite party with old left rebels on the sides would be so neo-liberal?!) but where the likes of Angela Merkel, Jose Zapatero and Romano Prodi, people who you would expect to be the darlings of the left are actually very liberal in their economic outlook. Ignore the authoritarian tendencies of leaders on the Continent as thats been a fixture for the past 50 years.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
I think the biggest shock isn't where Gordon Brown is (who knew the leader of what is now a neo-thatcherite party with old left rebels on the sides would be so neo-liberal?!) but where the likes of Angela Merkel, Jose Zapatero and Romano Prodi, people who you would expect to be the darlings of the left are actually very liberal in their economic outlook. Ignore the authoritarian tendencies of leaders on the Continent as thats been a fixture for the past 50 years.
B
Bullitt
Guest
Every question on there seems to be so biased towards the left I gave up bothering.
C
Charles
Guest
I'm the extremist of the forum 
h34r:
Economic Left/Right: -9.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36
Edit: after Redunderthebed, but I guess that was to be expected... :lol:
h34r: Economic Left/Right: -9.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36
Edit: after Redunderthebed, but I guess that was to be expected... :lol:
S
stormer2010
Guest
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.55
LOL, a bunch of communists on here. I think I am more liberal than this indicates: I hold my beliefs which might be somewhat conservative but wouldn't expect others to hold to the same views which makes me more liberal than what this indicates, I think.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.55
LOL, a bunch of communists on here. I think I am more liberal than this indicates: I hold my beliefs which might be somewhat conservative but wouldn't expect others to hold to the same views which makes me more liberal than what this indicates, I think.
G
gingergenius
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jan 26 2010, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
If you assumed 'centre of the compass' to equal 'moderate', yes.
However, we've grown up in a society with, like-it-or-not, leftist values on most moral issues. This is reflected in the test, because values we assume to be normal, accepted and unextreme are placed into the left of the compass. Equally, we enjoy and expect a lot of freedom, so you don't see too many people who are more authoritarian than libertarian.
So I'd say 'moderate', by Brtish standards, would be -2 to the left and -2/3 to libertarian. It'd be interesting to see what someone who'd grown up in a completely different culture would say.
If you assumed 'centre of the compass' to equal 'moderate', yes.
However, we've grown up in a society with, like-it-or-not, leftist values on most moral issues. This is reflected in the test, because values we assume to be normal, accepted and unextreme are placed into the left of the compass. Equally, we enjoy and expect a lot of freedom, so you don't see too many people who are more authoritarian than libertarian.
So I'd say 'moderate', by Brtish standards, would be -2 to the left and -2/3 to libertarian. It'd be interesting to see what someone who'd grown up in a completely different culture would say.
B
bristol-iain
Guest
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
I don't even understand the question :lol:
I don't even understand the question :lol:
S
shtove
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Jan 28 2010, 02:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
If you assumed 'centre of the compass' to equal 'moderate', yes.
However, we've grown up in a society with, like-it-or-not, leftist values on most moral issues. This is reflected in the test, because values we assume to be normal, accepted and unextreme are placed into the left of the compass. Equally, we enjoy and expect a lot of freedom, so you don't see too many people who are more authoritarian than libertarian.
So I'd say 'moderate', by Brtish standards, would be -2 to the left and -2/3 to libertarian. It'd be interesting to see what someone who'd grown up in a completely different culture would say.
[/b][/quote]
Typical NuLab - always shifting the goalposts, like an Edinburgh gale in the first match of the 6N.
Forget your left/right-libertarian (not liberal)/authoritarian contrasts, and consider this great phrase from the NuLab project in 1997 - The Third Way:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Oh, sorry. That was Mussolini. But I bet his ghost is happy to see the bargain our governors have struck with the banks.
Give me democracy.
If you assumed 'centre of the compass' to equal 'moderate', yes.
However, we've grown up in a society with, like-it-or-not, leftist values on most moral issues. This is reflected in the test, because values we assume to be normal, accepted and unextreme are placed into the left of the compass. Equally, we enjoy and expect a lot of freedom, so you don't see too many people who are more authoritarian than libertarian.
So I'd say 'moderate', by Brtish standards, would be -2 to the left and -2/3 to libertarian. It'd be interesting to see what someone who'd grown up in a completely different culture would say.
[/b][/quote]
Typical NuLab - always shifting the goalposts, like an Edinburgh gale in the first match of the 6N.
Forget your left/right-libertarian (not liberal)/authoritarian contrasts, and consider this great phrase from the NuLab project in 1997 - The Third Way:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Oh, sorry. That was Mussolini. But I bet his ghost is happy to see the bargain our governors have struck with the banks.
Give me democracy.
G
gingergenius
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jan 27 2010, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Oh, sorry. That was Mussolini. But I bet his ghost is happy to see the bargain our governors have struck with the banks.
Give me democracy.
[/b][/quote]
Thatcher and Reagan were the ones to shift the goalposts first. Before then, Labour were socialists and Conservatives were conservative (ie. one-nation). Then Thatcher came along - economically very liberal and socially very conservative - and moved the party much further right. Initially thanks to the Falklands, and later to economic boom, this was popular with the public. So to get in Labour had to move to the right as well, which Smith/ Blair did.
Then, the tables were turned, and the Conservatives were desperate to get back in. They saw that the public liked New-Labour's centre-right style - largely because the middle classes and Britain in general were able to continue the wealthy period started under Thatcher. So Cameron moved them back from the right and closer to New Labour, so that now they're almost indistnguishable.
The fact is, we really cannot complain about how things are now. Thatcher freed up the markets, and Blair allowed them to remain free. This has been the primary factor in Britain's massive success in recent years. The City of London produces a huge amount of wealth largely because it is deregulated.
Now, the recession has hit, and it seems like the City and Thatcher and Blair are all to blame. Which, they are. But as Marx pointed out 150 years ago, this is how capitalism works - a rollercoaster of boom and bust periods. We cannot moan now that capitalism/ bankers are ruining everything, when 5 years ago it was capitalism/ bankers who contributed a lot towards the increased wealth of the British people.
Personally, I think the wages some people earn are obscene. However, the wage structure system is 100% a result of the capitalist system. And as soon as you start blaming capitalism, people label you a communist, and the next thing they always say is that communism didn't work.
Which is a fair point. If we think just how lucky we in Britain are, compared to most of the rest of the world, a little recession should be the least of our problems. So while I'll stick to my idealistic leftist values, and moan about the government with everyone else, I'll also sit back and recognise that even if slimy c***s like Cameron weasel their way to power, we'r eall going to remain relatively well-off regardless.
Oh, sorry. That was Mussolini. But I bet his ghost is happy to see the bargain our governors have struck with the banks.
Give me democracy.
[/b][/quote]
Thatcher and Reagan were the ones to shift the goalposts first. Before then, Labour were socialists and Conservatives were conservative (ie. one-nation). Then Thatcher came along - economically very liberal and socially very conservative - and moved the party much further right. Initially thanks to the Falklands, and later to economic boom, this was popular with the public. So to get in Labour had to move to the right as well, which Smith/ Blair did.
Then, the tables were turned, and the Conservatives were desperate to get back in. They saw that the public liked New-Labour's centre-right style - largely because the middle classes and Britain in general were able to continue the wealthy period started under Thatcher. So Cameron moved them back from the right and closer to New Labour, so that now they're almost indistnguishable.
The fact is, we really cannot complain about how things are now. Thatcher freed up the markets, and Blair allowed them to remain free. This has been the primary factor in Britain's massive success in recent years. The City of London produces a huge amount of wealth largely because it is deregulated.
Now, the recession has hit, and it seems like the City and Thatcher and Blair are all to blame. Which, they are. But as Marx pointed out 150 years ago, this is how capitalism works - a rollercoaster of boom and bust periods. We cannot moan now that capitalism/ bankers are ruining everything, when 5 years ago it was capitalism/ bankers who contributed a lot towards the increased wealth of the British people.
Personally, I think the wages some people earn are obscene. However, the wage structure system is 100% a result of the capitalist system. And as soon as you start blaming capitalism, people label you a communist, and the next thing they always say is that communism didn't work.
Which is a fair point. If we think just how lucky we in Britain are, compared to most of the rest of the world, a little recession should be the least of our problems. So while I'll stick to my idealistic leftist values, and moan about the government with everyone else, I'll also sit back and recognise that even if slimy c***s like Cameron weasel their way to power, we'r eall going to remain relatively well-off regardless.
N
Nickdnz
Guest
Heh, quite interesting.
My results were:
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97
My results were:
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97
S
shtove
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Jan 28 2010, 11:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Oh, sorry. That was Mussolini. But I bet his ghost is happy to see the bargain our governors have struck with the banks.
Give me democracy.
[/b][/quote]
Thatcher and Reagan were the ones to shift the goalposts first. Before then, Labour were socialists and Conservatives were conservative (ie. one-nation). Then Thatcher came along - economically very liberal and socially very conservative - and moved the party much further right. Initially thanks to the Falklands, and later to economic boom, this was popular with the public. So to get in Labour had to move to the right as well, which Smith/ Blair did.
Then, the tables were turned, and the Conservatives were desperate to get back in. They saw that the public liked New-Labour's centre-right style - largely because the middle classes and Britain in general were able to continue the wealthy period started under Thatcher. So Cameron moved them back from the right and closer to New Labour, so that now they're almost indistnguishable.
The fact is, we really cannot complain about how things are now. Thatcher freed up the markets, and Blair allowed them to remain free. This has been the primary factor in Britain's massive success in recent years. The City of London produces a huge amount of wealth largely because it is deregulated.
Now, the recession has hit, and it seems like the City and Thatcher and Blair are all to blame. Which, they are. But as Marx pointed out 150 years ago, this is how capitalism works - a rollercoaster of boom and bust periods. We cannot moan now that capitalism/ bankers are ruining everything, when 5 years ago it was capitalism/ bankers who contributed a lot towards the increased wealth of the British people.
Personally, I think the wages some people earn are obscene. However, the wage structure system is 100% a result of the capitalist system. And as soon as you start blaming capitalism, people label you a communist, and the next thing they always say is that communism didn't work.
Which is a fair point. If we think just how lucky we in Britain are, compared to most of the rest of the world, a little recession should be the least of our problems. So while I'll stick to my idealistic leftist values, and moan about the government with everyone else, I'll also sit back and recognise that even if slimy c***s like Cameron weasel their way to power, we'r eall going to remain relatively well-off regardless.
[/b][/quote]
Heh, quite interesting - too many words and labels, not much reason.
Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Brown. Conservative, socialist. Left, right. Doesn't matter.
You think Britain is wealthy? No, Britain is poor. Nothing to do with history or theory - just plain mathematics: you can grow the DEBT beyond your means for a while, but then ...
The wages people earn are obscene? Yes, when those wages are dictated by the state - banks, lawyers, public sector. Plus fantasy pensions that taxpayers are expected to fund. Otherwise, productive people in the UK (rather than rent-seekers) have had to make up their cost of living over the past ten years through DEBT!
Doesn't matter - people who work for a living simply won't repay the DEBT! and your fantasy of world domination will collapse.
Democracy wins ... in a bloodbath. And that's why I approve of violence.
Oh, sorry. That was Mussolini. But I bet his ghost is happy to see the bargain our governors have struck with the banks.
Give me democracy.
[/b][/quote]
Thatcher and Reagan were the ones to shift the goalposts first. Before then, Labour were socialists and Conservatives were conservative (ie. one-nation). Then Thatcher came along - economically very liberal and socially very conservative - and moved the party much further right. Initially thanks to the Falklands, and later to economic boom, this was popular with the public. So to get in Labour had to move to the right as well, which Smith/ Blair did.
Then, the tables were turned, and the Conservatives were desperate to get back in. They saw that the public liked New-Labour's centre-right style - largely because the middle classes and Britain in general were able to continue the wealthy period started under Thatcher. So Cameron moved them back from the right and closer to New Labour, so that now they're almost indistnguishable.
The fact is, we really cannot complain about how things are now. Thatcher freed up the markets, and Blair allowed them to remain free. This has been the primary factor in Britain's massive success in recent years. The City of London produces a huge amount of wealth largely because it is deregulated.
Now, the recession has hit, and it seems like the City and Thatcher and Blair are all to blame. Which, they are. But as Marx pointed out 150 years ago, this is how capitalism works - a rollercoaster of boom and bust periods. We cannot moan now that capitalism/ bankers are ruining everything, when 5 years ago it was capitalism/ bankers who contributed a lot towards the increased wealth of the British people.
Personally, I think the wages some people earn are obscene. However, the wage structure system is 100% a result of the capitalist system. And as soon as you start blaming capitalism, people label you a communist, and the next thing they always say is that communism didn't work.
Which is a fair point. If we think just how lucky we in Britain are, compared to most of the rest of the world, a little recession should be the least of our problems. So while I'll stick to my idealistic leftist values, and moan about the government with everyone else, I'll also sit back and recognise that even if slimy c***s like Cameron weasel their way to power, we'r eall going to remain relatively well-off regardless.
[/b][/quote]
Heh, quite interesting - too many words and labels, not much reason.
Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Brown. Conservative, socialist. Left, right. Doesn't matter.
You think Britain is wealthy? No, Britain is poor. Nothing to do with history or theory - just plain mathematics: you can grow the DEBT beyond your means for a while, but then ...
The wages people earn are obscene? Yes, when those wages are dictated by the state - banks, lawyers, public sector. Plus fantasy pensions that taxpayers are expected to fund. Otherwise, productive people in the UK (rather than rent-seekers) have had to make up their cost of living over the past ten years through DEBT!
Doesn't matter - people who work for a living simply won't repay the DEBT! and your fantasy of world domination will collapse.
Democracy wins ... in a bloodbath. And that's why I approve of violence.
C
Charles
Guest
Dude what are you smoking...Your post doesn't make any sense. Riddles and enigmas...
Easier than well thoughts argumented post I guess
Easier than well thoughts argumented post I guess
G
gingergenius
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jan 28 2010, 12:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Oh, sorry. That was Mussolini. But I bet his ghost is happy to see the bargain our governors have struck with the banks.
Give me democracy.
[/b][/quote]
Thatcher and Reagan were the ones to shift the goalposts first. Before then, Labour were socialists and Conservatives were conservative (ie. one-nation). Then Thatcher came along - economically very liberal and socially very conservative - and moved the party much further right. Initially thanks to the Falklands, and later to economic boom, this was popular with the public. So to get in Labour had to move to the right as well, which Smith/ Blair did.
Then, the tables were turned, and the Conservatives were desperate to get back in. They saw that the public liked New-Labour's centre-right style - largely because the middle classes and Britain in general were able to continue the wealthy period started under Thatcher. So Cameron moved them back from the right and closer to New Labour, so that now they're almost indistnguishable.
The fact is, we really cannot complain about how things are now. Thatcher freed up the markets, and Blair allowed them to remain free. This has been the primary factor in Britain's massive success in recent years. The City of London produces a huge amount of wealth largely because it is deregulated.
Now, the recession has hit, and it seems like the City and Thatcher and Blair are all to blame. Which, they are. But as Marx pointed out 150 years ago, this is how capitalism works - a rollercoaster of boom and bust periods. We cannot moan now that capitalism/ bankers are ruining everything, when 5 years ago it was capitalism/ bankers who contributed a lot towards the increased wealth of the British people.
Personally, I think the wages some people earn are obscene. However, the wage structure system is 100% a result of the capitalist system. And as soon as you start blaming capitalism, people label you a communist, and the next thing they always say is that communism didn't work.
Which is a fair point. If we think just how lucky we in Britain are, compared to most of the rest of the world, a little recession should be the least of our problems. So while I'll stick to my idealistic leftist values, and moan about the government with everyone else, I'll also sit back and recognise that even if slimy c***s like Cameron weasel their way to power, we'r eall going to remain relatively well-off regardless.
[/b][/quote]
Heh, quite interesting - too many words and labels, not much reason.
Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Brown. Conservative, socialist. Left, right. Doesn't matter.
You think Britain is wealthy? No, Britain is poor. Nothing to do with history or theory - just plain mathematics: you can grow the DEBT beyond your means for a while, but then ...
The wages people earn are obscene? Yes, when those wages are dictated by the state - banks, lawyers, public sector. Plus fantasy pensions that taxpayers are expected to fund. Otherwise, productive people in the UK (rather than rent-seekers) have had to make up their cost of living over the past ten years through DEBT!
Doesn't matter - people who work for a living simply won't repay the DEBT! and your fantasy of world domination will collapse.
Democracy wins ... in a bloodbath. And that's why I approve of violence.
[/b][/quote]
This is frequently the case with your arguments... I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Your English teacher obviously never taught you to coherently link paragraphs together, rather than making random uninked statements.
I'll try to make sense of this jumble. 'Britain is poor'. No it's not. Being in debt and poor is not the same thing - just ask Man Utd. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world
'bankers have their wages dictated by the state'. Wrong. Bankers are paid by their companies. Because the banking industry is so important to our economy, bankers get paid a lot. And this industry has been central to our economy since Thatcher closed off most of the Primary & Secondary industries and we became a Service Economy. So you can have it the way it was, with subsidised miners & manufacturers, or you can have overpaid bankers like we have now.
'Fantasy of world domination' - don't get it.
'I approve of violence'. Pretty much sums you up. Democracy is a very flawed system, but in every way it is preferable to violence, which should never be an option.
Oh, sorry. That was Mussolini. But I bet his ghost is happy to see the bargain our governors have struck with the banks.
Give me democracy.
[/b][/quote]
Thatcher and Reagan were the ones to shift the goalposts first. Before then, Labour were socialists and Conservatives were conservative (ie. one-nation). Then Thatcher came along - economically very liberal and socially very conservative - and moved the party much further right. Initially thanks to the Falklands, and later to economic boom, this was popular with the public. So to get in Labour had to move to the right as well, which Smith/ Blair did.
Then, the tables were turned, and the Conservatives were desperate to get back in. They saw that the public liked New-Labour's centre-right style - largely because the middle classes and Britain in general were able to continue the wealthy period started under Thatcher. So Cameron moved them back from the right and closer to New Labour, so that now they're almost indistnguishable.
The fact is, we really cannot complain about how things are now. Thatcher freed up the markets, and Blair allowed them to remain free. This has been the primary factor in Britain's massive success in recent years. The City of London produces a huge amount of wealth largely because it is deregulated.
Now, the recession has hit, and it seems like the City and Thatcher and Blair are all to blame. Which, they are. But as Marx pointed out 150 years ago, this is how capitalism works - a rollercoaster of boom and bust periods. We cannot moan now that capitalism/ bankers are ruining everything, when 5 years ago it was capitalism/ bankers who contributed a lot towards the increased wealth of the British people.
Personally, I think the wages some people earn are obscene. However, the wage structure system is 100% a result of the capitalist system. And as soon as you start blaming capitalism, people label you a communist, and the next thing they always say is that communism didn't work.
Which is a fair point. If we think just how lucky we in Britain are, compared to most of the rest of the world, a little recession should be the least of our problems. So while I'll stick to my idealistic leftist values, and moan about the government with everyone else, I'll also sit back and recognise that even if slimy c***s like Cameron weasel their way to power, we'r eall going to remain relatively well-off regardless.
[/b][/quote]
Heh, quite interesting - too many words and labels, not much reason.
Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Brown. Conservative, socialist. Left, right. Doesn't matter.
You think Britain is wealthy? No, Britain is poor. Nothing to do with history or theory - just plain mathematics: you can grow the DEBT beyond your means for a while, but then ...
The wages people earn are obscene? Yes, when those wages are dictated by the state - banks, lawyers, public sector. Plus fantasy pensions that taxpayers are expected to fund. Otherwise, productive people in the UK (rather than rent-seekers) have had to make up their cost of living over the past ten years through DEBT!
Doesn't matter - people who work for a living simply won't repay the DEBT! and your fantasy of world domination will collapse.
Democracy wins ... in a bloodbath. And that's why I approve of violence.
[/b][/quote]
This is frequently the case with your arguments... I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Your English teacher obviously never taught you to coherently link paragraphs together, rather than making random uninked statements.
I'll try to make sense of this jumble. 'Britain is poor'. No it's not. Being in debt and poor is not the same thing - just ask Man Utd. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world
'bankers have their wages dictated by the state'. Wrong. Bankers are paid by their companies. Because the banking industry is so important to our economy, bankers get paid a lot. And this industry has been central to our economy since Thatcher closed off most of the Primary & Secondary industries and we became a Service Economy. So you can have it the way it was, with subsidised miners & manufacturers, or you can have overpaid bankers like we have now.
'Fantasy of world domination' - don't get it.
'I approve of violence'. Pretty much sums you up. Democracy is a very flawed system, but in every way it is preferable to violence, which should never be an option.
S
shtove
Guest
None of you gets the arithmetic of debt and compound interest.
Par for the course with socialists. Always spending other people's money until it runs out.
Without violence you have no way of telling the state to f*** off.
Sorry. Don't have time to write an essay couched in slogans.
Par for the course with socialists. Always spending other people's money until it runs out.
Without violence you have no way of telling the state to f*** off.
Sorry. Don't have time to write an essay couched in slogans.
N
Nickdnz
Guest
The previous posts from shtove I'm pretty sure I've heard before from the ranting of a fascist, fifty five year old cab driver...just saying.
