-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
I didn't bother to waste my time taking the test because the questions are in most cases irrelevant to the truth. Who ever wrote the questions has presupposed the test taker to their version of what is political.
I am of the same political orientation as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams. You can call it what you want. I call it, "Touch my things and I will kill you."
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
Touch my things and I will kill you
However, what could you say about social equality, protectionism, government’s responsibility for economics? Should a government control market and market’s players or they can find balance singly; should a government subsidize theaters or they must be compensated without any help? Any “yes” will move you to the left.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Звездочёт
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
Touch my things and I will kill you
However, what could you say about social equality, protectionism, government’s responsibility for economics? Should a government control market and market’s players or they can find balance singly; should a government subsidize theaters or they must be compensated without any help? Any “yes” will move you to the left.
I think he'd be in the upper right quadrant. DDT, indulge us!
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
[quote=почемучка][quote="mishau_":27inzd94][s:27inzd94][color=#BF0000]Surprizzed[/color][/s:27inzd94] [color=#0000FF]Surprised at[/color] how much in common I have with some forum dwellers here despite numerous [s:27inzd94]heat[color=#FF0000]ing[/color][/s:27inzd94] [color=#0000FF]heated[/color] debates. :flazhok:[/quote]
Хотя было много политических споров на этом форуме, я думаю, что все согласились, что зимой отопление хорошо. :D[/quote:27inzd94]
Both surprised how and surprised at how are acceptable ([url="http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic12085.html#33834"]http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopi ... html#33834[/url]).
Heating debates at BBC
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Звездочёт
Any “yes” will move you to the left.
I think it's also not about helping or nor helping those in need, but more like how it should be done. Should you pay less taxes and contribute directly to the causes you find right, or you give everything to the government and let them decide. Any "yes - I believe the bureaucrats know better than me" will move you to the left, and any "no - I think I know better" to the right. :instruct:
But, even that kind of "yes" would be ok as long as the questions are fair. But look at the following questions:
1. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of transnational corporations.
Please, tell me what sane person would reply "strongly disagree" to that?! That question is absurd! But answering "agree" would move you to the left.
2. What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
That is another absurd statement beautifully portrayed in "Catch-22". No sane person would agree to that saying as-is. But answering "disagree" would move you to the left.
That's what I meant by mentioning the questions are biased. Many people would find themselves more on the left than they actually are. And if the test is given to the young audience (perhaps it's primarily target), I think it can influence the young minds convincing them (as though from their own experience) they are actually on the left before they realize where they are really. :wall:
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
2. What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
That is another absurd statement beautifully portrayed in "Catch-22". No sane person would agree to that saying as-is. But answering "disagree" would move you to the left.
Actually, they would. Unless you are saying that people on the economic right are insane...?
That is the essence of neoclassical economics and their most famous proponent, Milton Friedman. The only social responsibility of business is to pursue profit. Only the strong ones survive (Darwinism applied to economics). This pursuit of profit or self-interest is ultimately good for the whole society (and that kind of free market economy is the sole source of good).
Check out "Cato Institute". They support that statement wholeheartedly and they have major influence on public policy in the states.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
This pursuit of profit or self-interest is ultimately good for the whole society (and that kind of free market economy is the sole source of good).
All I was saying the audience should be familiar with the interpretation before being asked that question "as-is". There are lots of other conditions that should be fulfilled prior to that sentence being useful. For example:
"What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us."
I can also interpret that as if a corporation wants to become successful, it is allowed to break the law. It is the "always" that is wrong. That's why no sane person (be him on the utmost right) would agree to that saying as-is.
Here's another absurd question: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."
Say, if a homeless person would try to walk through the doors of the Most Socialist of All Socialist Republics Government building, he would not be allowed in to have his sleep inside the warm building on a cold night just as he wouldn't in the headquarters of the Most Capitalistic of All Capitalistic Corporations.
A company does not have ANY social responsibilities. Whatsoever. People do.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
This pursuit of profit or self-interest is ultimately good for the whole society (and that kind of free market economy is the sole source of good).
All I was saying the audience should be familiar with the interpretation before being asked that question "as-is". There are lots of other conditions that should be fulfilled prior to that sentence being useful. For example:
"What's good for the most successful corporations is
always, ultimately, good for all of us."
I can also interpret that as if a corporation wants to become successful, it is allowed to break the law. It is the "always" that is wrong. That's why no sane person (be him on the utmost right) would agree to that saying as-is.
Here's another absurd question: "The
only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."
Say, if a homeless person would try to walk through the doors of the Most Socialist of All Socialist Republics Government building, he would not be allowed in to have his sleep inside the warm building on a cold night just as he wouldn't in the headquarters of the Most Capitalistic of All Capitalistic Corporations.
A company does not have ANY social responsibilities. Whatsoever. People do.
In a free-market economy as understood by neoclassical economists, *always* is right. If the company is doing something like breaking the law, the free market will act as a corrective. There is no need for any governmental/societal interference. So yes *always*. (Besides, in such conception of economics, the role of goverment in creating laws is severely limited but this is beside the point)
And that is not absurd -- because in current economy, a corporation is a legal person. Look at any corporate PR which speaks of social responsibility, corporate citizenship, etc. If corporation is legally a person, it is not absurd to ask what kind of a person should it be? Does it have any responsibilities a person should have? Read what Milton Friedman wrote on this. The argument is not that it doesn't have any responsibilities, but rather that pure pursuit of profit is a social responsibility because self-interest will generate social good.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Say, if a homeless person would try to walk through the doors of the Most Socialist of All Socialist Republics Government building, he would not be allowed in to have his sleep inside the warm building on a cold night just as he wouldn't in the headquarters of the Most Capitalistic of All Capitalistic Corporations.
Yes, of course, that is very true.
I wonder what would happen if the homeless person went to "the most Christian of all Christian Churches" instead? According to its' own scripture, it MUST help him! Jesus repeats over and over that people must be charitable towards the poor, etc.
But really, what would the church do? I am not really sure, and it probably varies depending on the circumstances...?
At the "Most Socialist..." government building, in THEORY the staff should refer the homeless person to the emergency social services shelter, where he could spend the night, prior to getting an emergency appointment to assess his accomodation needs....
I think that would happen in Scandinavia at least. They could hardly throw the man out on the street, in the middle of the WINTER. He could freeze to death! They would say "you cannot stay here, you have to go to the emergency social welfare shelter" at XX street".
Most of the homeless people there have had plenty of opportunities to get off the street; there are LOTS of programs to help such people. Some such people get sent to mental hospitals.
This place would take care of the homeless person if he went there:
http://www4.goteborg.se/prod/sk/serv...usgatan_14.jpg
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
If the company is doing something like breaking the law, the free market will act as a corrective. There is no need for any governmental/societal interference.
That is technically impossible. Because who is establishing the law? The free market? :mosking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
And that is not absurd -- because in current economy, a corporation is a legal person. [...] If corporation is legally a person, it is not absurd to ask what kind of a person should it be? Does it have any responsibilities a person should have?
Exactly!! It's a legal person! Therefore, the law (which is established and enforced by the states) makes the corporations responsible when they break the law. But the corporations are governed by the persons who have or do not have any social/moral/religious/ethical/etc. obligations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
Look at any corporate PR which speaks of social responsibility, corporate citizen, etc.
That does not enforce the board of directors making the so-called 'non-predatory' decisions that might hurt the value of the corporation.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
At the "Most Socialist..." government building, in THEORY the staff should refer the homeless person to the emergency social services shelter, where he could spend the night, prior to getting an emergency appointment to assess his accomodation needs....
So, you're saying there are no service shelters in the US? :shock: I know there are in Canada (which is not a socialist state), but there are still homeless people.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Звездочёт
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
Touch my things and I will kill you
However, what could you say about social equality, protectionism, government’s responsibility for economics? Should a government control market and market’s players or they can find balance singly; should a government subsidize theaters or they must be compensated without any help? Any “yes” will move you to the left.
I would say "no". But in reality even a people getting together to create any government is a "move to the left."
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Звездочёт
Any “yes” will move you to the left.
I think it's also not about helping or nor helping those in need, but more like how it should be done. Should you pay less taxes and contribute directly to the causes you find right, or you give everything to the government and let them decide. Any "yes - I believe the bureaucrats know better than me" will move you to the left, and any "no - I think I know better" to the right. :instruct:
But, even that kind of "yes" would be ok as long as the questions are fair. But look at the following questions:
1.
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of transnational corporations.
Please, tell me what sane person would reply "strongly disagree" to that?! That question is absurd! But answering "agree" would move you to the left.
2.
What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
That is another absurd statement beautifully portrayed in "Catch-22". No sane person would agree to that saying as-is. But answering "disagree" would move you to the left.
That's what I meant by mentioning the questions are biased. Many people would find themselves more on the left than they actually are. And if the test is given to the young audience (perhaps it's primarily target), I think it can influence the young minds convincing them (as though from their own experience) they are actually on the left before they realize where they are really. :wall:
Exactly!
I read the first few questions and dismissed the whole thing as a farce.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
So, you're saying there are no service shelters in the US? :shock: I know there are in Canada (which is not a socialist state), but there are still homeless people.
No I did not say that there are no service shelters in the US, because I don't know anything about it. The United Kingdom has no such service though.
I am just happen to know the basic social welfare law in Sweden, and that is that a person has a right to get a bed in a state run shelter if he turns up sober, before a certain time in the evening. It's a very unusual situation though - but if someone should find himself in that situation, that is his right as a citizen. The shelter will then try to find a better situation for the person so he does not end up staying there permanently.
I have no idea whether the US has any similar laws or not. My impression is that most welfare in the USA is charity based though, and not tax based.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
If the company is doing something like breaking the law, the free market will act as a corrective. There is no need for any governmental/societal interference.
That is technically impossible. Because who is establishing the law? The free market? :mosking:
I recommend reading some basic introductory texts to poli-sci or economics. Especially chapters on free market economy.
And I will gladly continue this debate, if you provide an argument. Because, yes, once again, in a pure free-market economy (which doesnt exist currently and you can debate on whether it can exist) creation of laws is guided by, you guessed it, the market. That is what "deregulation", "laissez-faire", etc, means.
cheers.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
That is the essence of neoclassical economics and their most famous proponent, Milton Friedman. The only social responsibility of business is to pursue profit. Only the strong ones survive (Darwinism applied to economics). This pursuit of profit or self-interest is ultimately good for the whole society (and that kind of free market economy is the sole source of good).
Check out "Cato Institute". They support that statement wholeheartedly and they have major influence on public policy in the states.
There are errors in this, and it is known where there are. Unless the definitions of what 'good for society as a whole' means includes input from all parts of society, then it is not possible to have a meaningful conversation about it. There is an obvious false syllogism going on where-by the debate is controlled by factions that provide definitions from their self interest, and exclude input from others.
There are several errors in neo-classical economics. It is necessary to inspect political agendas, political process, corporate agendas, and tax policies, to name just a few, in order to see what is really going on, and it ain't in society's interest at all. Just the interest of a small extremely powerful faction. The Cato institute is not speaking for everyone.
Remember, neo-classical economics do not represent all economists.
Neo-classical economics is not my personal economics of choice, so to speak. The point however is that if you accept the premises of such an argument, the conclusion is rational. There is nothing "insane" in that belief.
I think we would agree on that.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Let's agree that this "test" is just an approximation and not a definitive map of you or anyone else. Take it for what it is.
I would be more upset if some online test told me that, based on my responses, I'm most likely a fan of "Sex and the City" or, even worse, "The Bachelorette". :sad:
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
I recommend reading some basic introductory texts to poli-sci or economics. Especially chapters on free market economy.
So, let me ask one extreme question and I'll let it go. If the board of directors of a company has decided to execute ten people they think decrease the value of their stock, could that ever be considered something ultimately good for the society?
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
The “right” theory believe, that peoples are very “mobile”, haw D. Medvedev say, they can manoeuvre, learn new profession, etc. The “free market” idea do not know the word fair, it knew the word balance, equilibrium price instead fair price. And of cause, it’s just a theory. I do not believe, that somebody can be absolutely “right”.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
I recommend reading some basic introductory texts to poli-sci or economics. Especially chapters on free market economy.
So, let me ask one extreme question and I'll let it go. If the board of directors of a company has decided to execute ten people they think decrease the value of their stock, could that ever be considered something ultimately good for the society?
This is not as outrageous as it seems at first glance. There are numerous examples of "justfied" actions by corporations/businesses that involve "murder" (except it's not called by this word). Historically, murder of union organizers or striking workers has been justified (see, for example, the Ludlow Massacre). Currently, similar tactics are used around the world (see any number of documentaries and reports by independent human rights watchdogs on, for example, activities of Canadian mining companies in Latin America). Similarly, irresponsible actions by corporations can result in deaths of people -- industrial accidents, environmental disasters etc. Do we call this murder to increase stock or just unfortunate occurences? The answer to that depends on where your loyalties lie. This is also a reason why corporations enjoy the status of legal persons -- this provides them with protections from liabilities, so you can't call it murder. Whether it is or not, again, depends on how you label it.
So, the question is not whether "murder" is justified, but how that bare fact of taking someone's life is couched in ideological terms or in ideological label(this is true for both left and right, to be fair).
So yes, execution can be seen as good for the society. Or it can be made to appear to be good for the society. The distinction again depends on where your loyalties lie. Again, this is true for both left and right. It is enough to label someone, let's say, "communist agitator" or "capitalist infiltrator" or "saboteur" or "terrorist" and it becomes not only socially acceptable but also "necessary".
To get to your hypothetical situation now. Sure, if the company can say that these people are harmful to the state of things (pick your ideological reason here), execution is "good". In theory, if a company keeps killing people for no reason or for "wrong" reasons, it won't be successful. The question that started our exchange was specifically referring to "successful" corporations. This is in line with social Darwinism -- Darwinism applied to society/economics.
This might not be a position I personally agree with (or you... I dont know), but this has been a major factor in the Western ideologies (of all kinds) since the 19th century.
The question is not whether "murder" as such is right or wrong. Or whether death penalty is morally justified. These are questions for philosophy. Ideology is about the spin -- "justified murder", no?
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
Ideology is about the spin -- "justified murder", no?
Yes, I agree. Indeed, it's a question of where you stand. Presently, the collective agreement is that the 'justified murder' is only the state' prerogative and only whenever they are enforcing the laws (whichever they invent themselves in that way or another). A company is just a legal person and as such if we recognize their abilities to invent laws for themselves and justify that on their own, we, in fact, plunge the society into the state of anarchy. So, perhaps, some people would say it's good, but most of the people (whomever I call "sane") would respectfully disagree. Just compare the tone of the two questions:
1. "What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us."
2. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea"
Why not say something like that: "The success of the corporations is fundamentally beneficial for the society." (Agree/Disagree). People would be able to relate to that much easier than to the "always right" stuff, wouldn't they? :unknown:
And that was my whole point. :friends: :beer:
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
I didn't bother to waste my time taking the test because the questions are in most cases irrelevant to the truth. Who ever wrote the questions has presupposed the test taker to their version of what is political.
I am of the same political orientation as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams. You can call it what you want. I call it, "Touch my things and I will kill you."
I can't believe this but for once I am going to agree with DDT here... I finally had a chance to take a look at the SIX page test... and I need options of "I DON'T KNOW" or "I DON'T CARE" or it's really "NONE OF MY DARN BUSINESS" for answers!! Can you please create one like that for me?
What I found interesting is that for my daughter's final term paper she actually wrote a very good argument as to why Lincoln's actions of freeing the slaves were morally correct and yet legally unjustifiable as he took "property" away from people without compensating them!! And yet how his suspending Habeas Corpus was justifiably correct! :instruct: A 14 year old! Maybe she should be participating in these political forums???
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
Ideology is about the spin -- "justified murder", no?
Yes, I agree. Indeed, it's a question of where you stand. Presently, the collective agreement is that the 'justified murder' is only the state' prerogative and only whenever they are enforcing the laws (whichever they invent themselves in that way or another). A company is just a legal person and as such if we recognize their abilities to invent laws for themselves and justify that on their own, we, in fact, plunge the society into the state of anarchy. So, perhaps, some people would say it's good, but most of the people (whomever I call "sane") would respectfully disagree. Just compare the
tone of the two questions:
1. "What's good for the most successful corporations is
always, ultimately, good for all of us."
2. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a
fundamentally good idea"
Why not say something like that: "The success of the corporations is
fundamentally beneficial for the society." (Agree/Disagree). People would be able to relate to that much easier than to the "always right" stuff, wouldn't they? :unknown:
And that was my whole point. :friends: :beer:
About "state of anarchy"
I assume here you use the term "anarchy" in the "vernacular" sense -- chaos. Anarchy, however, is not equal to chaos as there are many varieties of anarchist philosophy, including anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy simply means absence of a government, but social order is still possible. Except it's achieved without centralised authority.
Quote from Wikipedia (although yes it's not a reliable scholarly source): "In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics."
You can see leanings towards this in the US in such things as privatisation of some law enforcement and privatisation of the correctional system, where, absurdly, it is profitable for private companies if a country imprisons more of its own citizens. But that is another topic.
Someone to such extreme right as an anarcho-capitalist, the answer to question 1 is complete agreement. If you disagree, a little, there is the gradation down to "agree".
While I personally am on quite the opposide side of the spectrum, I would hesitate to call proponents of free market anarchism "insane". There are nuts on every point of any spectrum, and there are many highly intelligent people who advocate anarcho-capitalism.
I see what you are saying, but at the same time, if the question is made "comfortable", then the gradation of complete agreement and some agreement wouldn't be as meaningful. As it stands, I see both 1. and 2. as extreme positions (indicated by words like "ultimately" and "fundamentally"). If something is "fundamental" it is naturalised and universalised, no? So your rephrasing would be equally an extreme position.
Perhaps the question is then how do people understand these words in these contexts and how it inflects their understanding of the question/statement. But there is no way to use language "objectively" as anyone's perception of language (especially more abstract language) is inflected by their experiences, ideologies, level of education, cultural background, and so on and so on. That's another reason why a test like this is just a tool for general approximation but not an absolutely irrefutable measurement of anything.
:beer:
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Oh wow, I know that test, did it once... I too ended up with Gandhi and Mandela... left libertarian.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
I do not have to do it. I know I'd be in the South-West corner. :angel:
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
What I found interesting is that for my daughter's final term paper she actually wrote a very good argument as to why Lincoln's actions of freeing the slaves were morally correct and yet legally unjustifiable as he took "property" away from people without compensating them!! And yet how his suspending Habeas Corpus was justifiably correct! :instruct: A 14 year old! Maybe she should be participating in these political forums???
She sounds recruit-able maybe she would like to join the Militia Movement?
If she would like any additional information about the Founding Documents or things like the 14th Amendment she can find some well written articles here, look for posts particularly by "Enforcer" or "Eagleclaw2".
https://unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/f ... y.php?f=40
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
@Croc...
Your political buddy is Milton Friedman. Apparently he was very boring.... At least with Nelson Mandela and Castro I'd have a bit of fun :yahoo:
Hmm... the more I think about it the more I'm puzzled.. What kind of [a bit of] fun would you have with Nelson Mandela? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/personal/pig_ball.gif
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
@Croc...
Your political buddy is Milton Friedman. Apparently he was very boring.... At least with Nelson Mandela and Castro I'd have a bit of fun :yahoo:
Hmm... the more I think about it the more I'm puzzled.. What kind of [a bit of] fun would you have with Nelson Mandela?
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/personal/pig_ball.gif
:) You'd have learnt a great deal about being imprisoned.
I don't think the placement of politicians on this map really reflects their personal views. If they had passed this test personally I think their results would differ from those we see. I suspect that the base for their placement here were quotes from different speeches or books they (personally?) wrote.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
@Croc...
Your political buddy is Milton Friedman. Apparently he was very boring.... At least with Nelson Mandela and Castro I'd have a bit of fun :yahoo:
Hmm... the more I think about it the more I'm puzzled.. What kind of [a bit of] fun would you have with Nelson Mandela?
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/personal/pig_ball.gif
:) You'd have learnt a great deal about being imprisoned.
And you'd get to hang out with Bono!! :shock:
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Here's my result:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...3.75&soc=-5.23
Fine. I suppose that's about where I really stand, but I'll take it as a rare incident. I basically don't believe in such "tests". As Crocodile has already mentioned, the questions are often biased and the result merely provokes a sarcastic smile.
But I'm glad I'm not at extreme ends!
1-How long does it take to establish firm political opinions? Once you're past your teens? Once you get a serious, full-time job? Once you get married?
2-Is it a good thing to have firmly established opinions on anything at all? And especially on a ticklish matter like politics? Is it safe to have fixed opinions only as long as you don't have the power to put them into action? How do you describe a good politician's mentality; stable or flexible?
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
http://politicalcompass.org/facebook...1.88&soc=-2.21
Socially liberal, Fiscally conservative.
HATE nanny states. Fry murderers. O'Bama is an idiot (Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and the whole political state sucks). Extremism in any form is wrong. I'm not going to pay for welfare queens (can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em). Yankees are better than Rebels/ Red Sox are better than Yankees. Be a nice guy is where religion shines / I'm right, your wrong is when religion fails. Take responsibility for your own actions.
I could go on.
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Since I have worked in multinational corporations for a while, I can see that they are just as ruthless as socialism says; exploiting the third world, the environment, weak people in society and even their own employees.
I think it is multinational corporations that really run the world today (through lobbying, through their power in Washington, Brussels and with the backing of the US Army)
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadim Mo
Кто же я??
Еще чуть подальше в фиолетовый угол, и был бы Новодворской. :mosking:
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadim Mo
Кто же я??
Еще чуть подальше в фиолетовый угол, и был бы Новодворской. :mosking:
Не, Баба Лера слишком далеко у края должна быть. Как и Гоблин с его компанией. Только с другого края.
Оказывается, я совпал по взглядам с Крокодилом.
Неплохая компания. :)
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadim Mo
Как и Гоблин с его компанией. Только с другого края.
Неужели Гоблина можно считать леваком? :shock:
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadim Mo
Оказывается, я совпал по взглядам с Крокодилом.
Неплохая компания. :)
Йо! :friends: :beer:
-
Re: Who is who? Political Compass
Quote:
Originally Posted by BappaBa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadim Mo
Как и Гоблин с его компанией. Только с другого края.
Неужели Гоблина можно считать леваком? :shock:
Скорее праваком. Но что он должен быть у верхней границы, это ведь очевидно?