|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 25, 2010 19:14:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2010 19:51:53 GMT
I was labeled a centrist according to these peculiar questions.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Jul 25, 2010 20:01:42 GMT
I'm liberal by their standard. No surprise as I consider the NYT center-right. I always wonder what color the sky is in the world inhabited by people that claim the NYT is liberal.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 25, 2010 20:12:35 GMT
Ha! There are a couple of people with their heads up their butts conservatives in my family, and whenever I offer some salient fact in conversation° with them, it's countered with, "Where did you get that -- from the liberal press?" (Or equally, "*snort* oh, sure -- the New York Times" *eye roll*")
Please, someone tell me -- where is this mainstream "liberal press" of which I hear so much?
°conversation with them = womanful effort not to spit insults at their "intelligence"
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 27, 2010 5:56:50 GMT
So only three people were willing to test themselves? I'm disappointed, as there were a couple of the topics on the quiz that I wanted to discuss after enough people took the test. Those were the ones that I felt couldn't have a firm yes or no answer.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Jul 27, 2010 9:28:45 GMT
Surprise, surprise, I am way over there with the Liberals. 5/6
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 15:30:09 GMT
I am labeled a centrist. The questions are worded in such a way however,that it muddles some of the issues being raised.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 27, 2010 16:35:23 GMT
Exactly. The quiz marks me as a Liberal, but one notch less of a Liberal than Alanseago.
One of the the questions that made me less Liberal was too rigidly yes-or-no, in my opinion.
The other one I marked based on my extremely scanty knowledge of the subject, solely informed by mainstream media. That frighteningly points out how most real voting decisions are made, decisions that wind up affecting everyone.
|
|
|
Post by joanne28 on Jul 27, 2010 16:50:05 GMT
I am definitely a liberal. 5 of 6 of my opinions were considered liberal. The one place I was conservative was the death penalty for raping a child. I think I could be accurately described as to the right of Attila the Hun on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 17:22:22 GMT
Exactly. The quiz marks me as a Liberal, but one notch less of a Liberal than Alanseago. One of the the questions that made me less Liberal was too rigidly yes-or-no, in my opinion. The other one I marked based on my extremely scanty knowledge of the subject, solely informed by mainstream media. That frighteningly points out how most real voting decisions are made, decisions that wind up affecting everyone. It brings to mind, how polls,which I never held much stock in to begin with,are so misleading as well. I question as well,the publication. (NY Times) being a fairly liberal publication,and how,a similar questionnaire by a more conservative one would be worded differently. (Or is the NYT quoting from somewhere else? I need to go back and check).
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Jul 28, 2010 6:22:05 GMT
3:3. First three conservative, last three liberal. Funny, In Germany I'm considered a complete conservative...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 6:55:19 GMT
I was labeled conservative on some questions probably because I view some of the problems from a non-American point of view. For example, I am against late term abortions, because there should be a full array of social services available to all women so that the problem never even arises. However, if you totally remove the social net, I would be in favor of them, even if I find them regrettable.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 28, 2010 7:26:00 GMT
That was one of the questions that hung me up, too, partly because of having read horror stories about them promulgated by foes of abortion. And really, the term "partial-birth abortion" is horrible enough.
The other question that marked me as a conservative was the first one, over which I vacillated furiously. On the one hand a "yes" leads to situations such as that yahoo in Baton Rouge who shot the Japanese exchange student, leading me to want to say "no". On the other hand, the constitution guarantees the "right to bear arms". I am deeply ambivalent about it, possibly as only an American could be.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 12:22:32 GMT
That was one of the questions that hung me up, too, partly because of having read horror stories about them promulgated by foes of abortion. And really, the term "partial-birth abortion" is horrible enough. The other question that marked me as a conservative was the first one, over which I vacillated furiously. On the one hand a "yes" leads to situations such as that yahoo in Baton Rouge who shot the Japanese exchange student, leading me to want to say "no". On the other hand, the constitution guarantees the "right to bear arms". I am deeply ambivalent about it, possibly as only an American could be. This is where I got hung up as well...on both these,the partial birth,the term,yes,horrific enough ...let alone the philosophical,idealogical debate and what K. said... Number one,also,for the same reason Bixa mentions AND I question,on some level, whether one should have to register a firearm? Is that constitutional ? The 2nd Amendment also states,"shall not be infringed upon",registration,therefore,infringement,no?(Not that I am pro gun,but,the questions raised,do have merit IMHO)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 12:47:32 GMT
The Constitution for some reason has been placed by Americans as high in infallibility as the Bible for a Jehovah's Witness. In most countries, constitutions are rewritten every 30 or 40 years, if only to update them to modern concerns and to integrate the amendments rather than leaving them dangling as afterthoughts.
For some reason, the United States does not want to do this, costing a fortune in things like Supreme Court cases trying to fit an 18th century square peg into a 21st century round hole. I would certainly want a constitution that doesn't talk about slaves, militias, banning alcohol and then authorizing it again, and getting around to maybe let women vote. The constitution makes me think of a cartoon tire with 50 patches on it and air leaking out anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 28, 2010 14:11:19 GMT
Although it's true that you can hear people citing the Constitution to justify all kinds of positions, I don't believe it is blanketly seen as an infallible document. The more common and sane view of it is as the officially agreed upon code of the republic to which the individual states must conform when making their laws. And I understand the point about tidiness and specificity in a constitution, but you'd still need a Supreme Court to determine specific cases according to whichever constitution was in use at the time. Personally, I'm in agreement with letting the original document stand and to have amendments to it. In that sense, it functions as a record of how the country and its laws evolved. In the thread, Ethnic statistics and equality, the point was made that dismay over persecution of some groups in the past has caused various countries to ban any collection of data about ethnicity, religion, etc. Whereas I can see the logic in that, my personal view of it parallels my thinking about the constitution as stated above, that unfortunate parts of the past should be not harped upon, but also not swept under the rug. The acknowledgment that governments and their people are capable of instituting and carrying out policies of stupidity and injustice and the record of how those policies were reversed is not a bad thing to keep before the consciousness of the public.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 14:41:25 GMT
Well stated Bixa! Yes,this is why we have the amendment process.It is very difficult to have an amendment ratified, and, for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 14:54:19 GMT
It's not as though you throw the old constitution in the trash when you write a new one. There are archives for that sort of thing.
I do admit that it would take Congress at least 40 years to agree on the text of a new constitution, because somebody would probably want to talk about 40 acres and a mule instead of freedom of gender reassignment or some such.
Bunch of conservatives!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 15:04:44 GMT
But,Kerouac,don't you see? It's not in the Constitution ,to write a new Constitution...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 16:56:10 GMT
Exactly. In any case, I remember how it is drilled into you from the earliest age that the document is sacred and untouchable -- after all, I did all of my schooling in the U.S., and it was only in university that I realized that I had been trained to be as dogmatic as a North Korean when I took a test about "values" in an international relations class. I was so shocked by the label "dogmatic" (which was totally justified in view of my replies) that from that day on I started questioning everything that was told to me about what is good or bad or what is important. I can attribute my hatred of the Marseillaise (French national anthem) to this as well, because the French are just as dogmatic about the Marseillaise as Americans are about the Constitution (or just about anybody who lives in a kingdom about royalty). But, non merci, I will absolutely never "irrigate my furrows with the blood of the impure." Meanwhile, France is on its 5th constitution, dating from 1958 (De Gaulle). A lot of us are chomping at the bit for the "6th Republic" (6th constitution) in line with the 21st century. There are associations for this and a parliamentary group, but I'd say it is still 10-15 years off.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 28, 2010 17:51:21 GMT
Be that as it may, according to The Test, I am more liberal than you.
(na na na na-na)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 22:57:03 GMT
I have no recall of having the U.S. Constitution drilled into me. I would also venture to say,that the average American could not recite the Bill of Rights if asked to.People conveniently will throw out phrases such as "it's my constitutional right" when the need arises..ask them what they mean and most look at you like Few Americans know or understand the U. S. Constitution,this topic comes up quite often with my husband,who is definitely more of a centrist than I am,and a fierce defender of the U.S. Constitution as it is currently written. ( He is btw,currently following this thread with great amusement... )bordering on vitriol at times...he was labeled a centrist as well ,by the questionnaire)
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Jul 29, 2010 3:21:30 GMT
Well, I took the quiz and came out as a liberal bordering on centrist. I did think about the questions in terms of the Constitution, because there was no other context surrounding the question. And I struggled a lot with the questions. For example, re: gun ownership. There are a lot of varieties of gun ownership. Possessing a registered handgun frankly makes no sense to me. Although I do think it reasonable for hunters to own guns (usually not handguns). But I also think (and was taught) that the intent of that amendment was really the right to a militia, not the right to bear arms for defense against burglars (or to be a burglar with a gun). This is one area where the spirit of the law has been absurdly misappropriated. And of course I live in a State where our esteemed governor just signed into law a provision that concealed weapons no longer require a permit. I'm sure now that she was preparing for SB 1070. I am generally against the death penalty, but the rape of a child is truly unforgivable. I had a very hard time with that one. Really, the rape of anyone is unforgivable, but I live in the dream state, I suppose, that humans are evolved enough to collectively care for all of our young. Also, despite being generally pro-choice, I can't really embrace late term abortions. Although the commentary after making my selection included the words: "even when the pregnant woman’s health is at risk". I might have a different answer with that piece of information. My thought is that the majority of late term abortion seekers are going to be from at risk mothers, rather than delayed changes of mind. Although I deplore the power that businesses have to influence individuals and elected officials, I greatly value our freedom of speech. Probably more than any other part of the Constitution. At any rate, I would have liked to see a quiz with beefier questions, with some context. Oh, and the parts of the Constitution I can recite by heart are the Preamble (required memorization, reinforced by assisting in the required memorization by my children, and the 21st Amendment. The latter because that was the name of a bar near my university campus.
|
|
|
Post by joanne28 on Jul 30, 2010 1:50:15 GMT
Two points which are interesting to me.
First this obsession with the constitution protecting guns. I understand people want to hunt, target shoot and that sort of thing. But a handgun is really about killing a person, isn't it? I would think that a law-abiding person would not have a problem registering their gun. So why the heated reactions?
What about driving without a license? Isn't the license in effect registering the car and/or driver? Is that an infringement of liberty?
The second thing is abortion. My first thought is that if a person is against abortion, she certainly shouldn't have one. If one can't get pregnant, should one be entitled to an opinion?
As for late term abortion, I would like to see the statistics on how many are actually performed. The term "partial birth abortion" was designed by the anti-abortion people to elicit a horrified emotional response and is meaningless.
These anti-abortion people (they are not pro-life as once you stick a big toe out of the womb they couldn't care less) would rather see women die than have access to safe abortions. They are usually vehemently against birth control also, which is completely and utterly stupid. If there is reliable birth control for everyone, there won't be a need for abortion. Reliable birth control for teenagers would also (I hope) reduce teen motherhood, which I think is another huge problem.
What I've always found amusing is how most anti-abortion people are pro-capital punishment and most pro-abortion people are anti-capital punishment. I have no problems with killing on either end (said sardonically).
I do not understand why people get so emotional about what other people do to their own bodies. It is very much a personal choice and I do not think it is a choice normally taken lightly.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Jul 30, 2010 8:26:38 GMT
Germany doesn't have a constitution as far as I know.
We've got a provisional one though, it's called the Grundgesetz, something like 'basic law'.
A proper constitution should be in the making though, we've been reunified for over 20 years!
|
|
|
Post by komsomol on Jul 30, 2010 13:56:28 GMT
Did the two parts of Germany have constitutions before reunification?
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jul 30, 2010 15:36:24 GMT
I agree with Joanne about this quiz.
Not being American, the question of having guns at home never crosses my mind as being defendable because it's part of the constitution.
How late in the pregnancy is a "late-term" abortions? How many happen? Why? The anti-abortion camp in the States seems to call anything after the day of conception "late-term". The money wasted on their advertising campaigns should be used to fund sex education in schools and subsiding contraception for young women who can't afford it. From the way they talk, you'd think women are out getting abortions for the pleasure of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 30, 2010 16:14:05 GMT
Oh no, Bjd -- they're not getting them for pleasure. They're getting them because they're too slutty and irresponsible to remember to take their birth control pills, so instead blithely use abortion for birth control. And for that they should surely be punished by being made to bring a child into the world and raise it, which would introduce them to the pleasures of wholesome family values and then we'd all live happily ever after. See how realistic that is?
As I said earlier, owning a gun obviously appeals to many jerks who can't be trusted even to own slingshots. That aside, I have to wonder if part of the ambivalence in the US among the sane, liberal-minded population over the right to own a gun isn't historically based. The "right to bear arms" was written into the constitution so that the fledgling country's population could serve as a militia, as Cristina points out. In the mostly agrarian economy of the time, guns were useful for killing game and warding off wolves and bears. (In addition, the newly uncolonialized found guns helpful in colonizing a land inconveniently already populated by "hostile" natives.)
But to bring that further forward in time -- everyone who had parents of the same generation as mine, those born @ between 1915 and 1930, inherited what their parents learned as young people, to wit, that the first thing a dictatorship does is to take away guns from the population at large in order to weaken them. I suspect every American roughly in my age group heard something like this when growing up, which certainly plants the seed that individual gun ownership is a positive thing.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Jul 31, 2010 4:04:47 GMT
Did the two parts of Germany have constitutions before reunification? The East certainly had one. We were told ours is temporary and we'd get the final one after reunification ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2010 10:59:44 GMT
Excellent point Bixa about the people's fear of giving the government too much power, which is(one reason) why people do fight over this issue. The Federal government creates a Dept. of Education,billions of tax dollars get bilked from the people,and 'Johnny,'still can't read. Why do we need a Dept. of Education? Where are these monies going?
|
|