Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Political IQ Test
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64121] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 14:52  |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I can't vote directly yet, so my only hope is to try and influence old people. Anyway, test your friends!
ANSWERS:
1. Depends
2. Not C or E
3. Not D, B is half credit
4. A
5. A
6. A or B, not all Republicans are bad
7. C or D
SCORING RUBRIC:
5-7: A well-informed voter
3-4: Pushing it...
0-2: You must be one of Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads.
I contemplated putting this in the Politics section, but not too many people read that one, and I had to express my political stance. Remember this, if you would vote for Bush, vote for the Democratic presidential candidate instead to make up for my inability to vote, please.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64126] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 14:58  |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Pardon me, but I actually did look up political issues...in english, the word "youth" doesn't translate into "stupid".
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64133] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 15:31 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
While I must agree with you that, yes, I'm not a master of sarcasm, are you saying that Bush is a good President? Bush has hurt America with big tax cuts that primarily help the rich. Now, you may be saying that it only seems like poor people didn't get much help because of Democrats distorting statistics with their "propaganda". Here's a simplified version: The bottom 60% of income levels in America got 14.7 % of the help from Bush's tax cuts. And Bush has always been saying the vast majority of the help from his tax cuts will go to those at the bottom of the spectrum. Yep, that's definitely a mark of a great president. [Look, more sarcasm!] Now, on to the so-called "War on ". Despite what FOX news tells you [FOX news is conservative propaganda if there ever was any, because FOX is basically a branch of conservatives. One way to support this is that the President of FOX was an advisor to George Bush Senior.] there really aren't any "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. There really never were any, although I will bet my soul that troops will "find" some of them right before the election. Now, I am all for evil dictators like Saddam being kicked out of power, but not under false pretexts. [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. Besides, Bush went about removing Saddam in about the worst way possible. He basically flicked off the U.N. and went his merry way.
Now tell me I don't look up the issues. Although it's hard for me to prove over a chatroom, I didn't cruise over to Wherever.com and look all this up. I knew this. That's why I don't like Bush. That's why I utilized my capacity for sarcasm. And that's why I wish I could vote.
Oh, and Al Franken's books aren't propaganda. They're facts. So I guess I've been biting into the truth too much. Sorry. [Yay! More sarcasm!]
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64135] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 15:49 |
 |
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Yeah, like I said, you bit into propaganda. Look up the tax statistics? Who pays the most? That's right, the wealthy do. It's only "fair" that they get a proportional share of their money back. People who are in the middle class don't pay nearly as much as the wealthy citizens do. People who are poor pay next to nothing, if nothing at all. So why do they deserve tax breaks of thousands of dollars? Because they're poor? Sorry dude, look up the Constitution - where in it does it state that your fellow man is required to work FOR YOU instead of work for himself? The entire point of free enterprise is not to dole out money to the government to feed bloated social projects, it's to get yourself ahead in life. If you don't like this and the way the government was formed, you do have the option of trying to change it - however, you'd fit in more with Germany, seeing as how it's a welfare state.
So what if he told the UN to fuck off? We sat on our hands for twelve years while they did nothing but pass meaningless resolutions that Saddam ignored. I don't care WHAT pretext we went in under, every single one of them cited was a valid justification to enter the country and overtake it by force.
| Quote: |
Oh, and Al Franken's books aren't propaganda. They're facts.
|
"A half truth is always a full lie."
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64136] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 16:01 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Yes, it is one view that since rich people pay more taxes, they should get more back from tax cuts. But then again, rich people don't have to go hungry. Rich people don't have to make sacrifices to put their children through college. Rich people don't have to work two jobs just to support their kids. But, I guess fair is fair.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64140] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 16:16 |
 |
bigejoe14
Messages: 1302
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Tax cuts being only for the rich is a lie. We all got the tax cuts. The only people who didn't were the people on wellfare who, may I remind you, don't have to pay taxes. The only people who got the tax cuts were the people who pay taxes, not just "rich people". Stop spinning.
Oh, and I see that you read Al Franken books, or "King Contradiction" as I like to call him. Yea, the one who complained that Ann Coulter was to insulting, yet he wrote a book called "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot." :rolleyes:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0440508649/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-0830515-5934261#reader-link
People who hate America read Al Franken books.
WHATEVER, FAGGOT
[Updated on: Fri, 30 January 2004 16:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64141] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 16:22 |
|
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Yes, it is one view that since rich people pay more taxes, they should get more back from tax cuts. But then again, rich people don't have to go hungry. Rich people don't have to make sacrifices to put their children through college. Rich people don't have to work two jobs just to support their kids. But, I guess fair is fair.
|
And your point is? You think it's alright to circumvent the Constitution, making one man into an economic slave for another man's prosperity? Poverty is a sad thing, I won't argue with you about that. However, you make it out to be that eliminating poverty is the job of everyone who's wealthier than you. Do you deserve money because others have it?
That, my friend, is called jealousy. Some people grow up and become mature enough to figure out that coveting what others have and being irrationally jealoius of them is simply nothing but a self-destroying ideal that people believe in. The premise is negative. The emotions you receive from it are negative. All it does is destroy whoever your personality is, leaving you a corrupt, empty shell after greed and power -- all because you want it since others have it.
If you worked for your whole live, had millions of dollars to live off of, and ended up being sucked dry by taxes - would you feel the same way? I seriously doubt it.
It's not the federal government's job to feed the hungry or shelter the poor. It's the government's job to protect us from foreign invaders, among other things.
If you want to help eliminate poverty - do it by donating your own time and money to the cause. Not by forcing others to do what you think they should do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64143] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 16:29 |
|
|
That wasn't very funny. Ever hear of Berke Breathed? People like him are able to make people laugh at themselves, when I was a conservative (I'm now a Libertarian/Juris Naturalist), I laughed, and still laugh at it all the time.
And take a look the Whats-his-name Jones of the Free-Lance Star. He pissed off and amused just about everybody in the area.
You really need to make your stuff better so many people are amused.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Rich people don't have to work two jobs just to support their kids.
|
Maybe because TAXES are bogging down on families? You know who get hurt the MOST by liberal economic policy? The middle class. They can't afford great tax avoidance like the rich, yet they don't get things like welfare for the rich.
Look at the Salvation Army, Goodwill and the Red Cross, THAT'S how we should be helping the poor; not by having the government rob Dan to help Joe. Read some Richard Maybury books, it'll give you a WHOLE new perspective on things.
God is the "0wnage". Plain and Simple.
Visit http://www.theoriginalmrbob.com
"If there's one freak to be, it's a Jesus freak"
All your base are belong to us.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64150] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 16:43 |
 |
smwScott
Messages: 225
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I certainly agree that Bush is a terrible president, although getting your facts from Al Franken is about the same as getting them from Dennis Miller. I think he's funny and I agree with his opinions, but they are just opinions.
The tax cuts were given with the purpose of giving money to the rich. $100 isn't going to save a lower class family, $15,000 is going towards buying some rich kid a Lexus. I'm not saying we should distribute the tax cuts unevenly, I'm saying we should raise taxes. By doing so the economy would improve and it would create more jobs.
About the decision to enter war - it was totally unjustified and done entirely for political reasons. It's sad how many people just go along with it. The best argument to give against Bush is to just show people where we were in 2000, and show them where we are now.
I would give a longer, more in depth opinion, but I only slept 2 hours last night and I'm not thinking too clear.
-smwScott
47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64152] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 16:54 |
|
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
No, you aren't, 'cause the last time I checked, the economy was doing great... What're you even talking about?
More taxes? If you didn't know, tax cuts are exactly what Reagan passed, which led to Clinton's success... Now Bush passed them, and the economy is growing - we've won two wars, successful economy, you really think he's a horrible president?
Sure, okay... Lets put Hussien in power, since no one seems to object to him ruling anything..
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64158] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 17:48 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Ah, the wonders of economics. The solution to one problem is what causes the next. Raising taxes works fine for a while, but eventually the economy starts to decline. (people can't afford the things, so prices drop to a buyable range, only to have the economy slump because the amount of money being brought in is now less) Lowering the taxes stops this, but brings about it's own problems. People have money to spend, so the economy booms, until inflation catches up, and we're right back where we started. Solve that by raising taxes... and 'round and 'round we go.
Yes, this is only part of a larger picture, but in regards to the raising taxes question, I think it answers it. Same answer applies to bank loan rates as well.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64161] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 17:57 |
 |
mrpirate
Messages: 1262
Registered: March 2003
Location: Ontario
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
The following post concerns all countries, and is entirely my opinion(of course):
One's ability to succeed in life has everything to do with what one's parents can afford to provide, in the areas of education especially. Many people are born into poverty, and many are born into wealth. Obviously, the people whose parents are rich have a better chance to prosper in life. This isn't fair. I realize, of course, that "life isn't fair," but that's not an excuse to ignore the issue entirely. All of us have a social responsibility to help the less fortunate, be it through taxes, or volunteering our time.
There are poor people who manage to overcome the odds to attain success, and there are poor people who do nothing and live off of welfare. It's also important to remember that there are people who geniunely need welfare to help them survive long enough to get a job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64169] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 18:18 |
|
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| mrpirate |
The following post concerns all countries, and is entirely my opinion(of course):
One's ability to succeed in life has everything to do with what one's parents can afford to provide, in the areas of education especially. Many people are born into poverty, and many are born into wealth. Obviously, the people whose parents are rich have a better chance to prosper in life. This isn't fair. I realize, of course, that "life isn't fair," but that's not an excuse to ignore the issue entirely. All of us have a social responsibility to help the less fortunate, be it through taxes, or volunteering our time.
There are poor people who manage to overcome the odds to attain success, and there are poor people who do nothing and live off of welfare. It's also important to remember that there are people who geniunely need welfare to help them survive long enough to get a job.
|
I ask this: "So?"
You think it's more fair to redistribute wealth to those who did nothing to deserve it?
You can keep spouting off about how we all have some invisible responsibility to take care of others... As if you're going to sit there and say that if your own money is being taken to give to someone else.
"Everything is possible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself."
You need to realize: This country has a set of rules. Those are defined in the Constitution. When you propose that we all have to give our money away to people, just to make life "fair" for them, what you're doing is being unfair to those who you're stealing from. Thus, you've made them into economic slaves.
Is that fair? No, it isn't. NOTHING IS FAIR. Get used to it! If you have problems with being poor, work! Get a job! Not everyone will give you handouts. And expecting people to feed and clothe you just because you're unable to do it is lunacy. If you want to do it, DO IT YOURSELF, donate YOUR OWN MONEY AND TIME to take care of those who are less fortunate than you are.
After all, it's YOUR self-proclaimed responsibility. Not anyone else's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64176] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 19:23 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Javaxc |
Canada is larger by mass than America
|
Hurray you can grow more crops.
But nothing much else beyond that, I'm sorry to say.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Nov 17 16:16:47 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01350 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
