As an example of variations on quizzes causing varied results for me:
Where on the political spectrum are you?
- Thread starter Zulu Romeo
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
^ That's just the sample. Your results are below that.
LOL
So it was. But the huge irony is that my score is almost that exact spot.
So it was. But the huge irony is that my score is almost that exact spot.
^^This right here is a very nice definition of fascism btw in my opinion.
And it's pretty funny to watch an actual Italian get lectured on Mussolini and Ancient Rome by a (I'm assuming American) self-described fascist.
I can see why a dictator could in theory be benevolent, but even the wisest of people would probably abuse that power eventually.
^^This right here is a very nice definition of fascism btw in my opinion.
And it's pretty funny to watch an actual Italian get lectured on Mussolini and Ancient Rome by a (I'm assuming American) self-described fascist.
Again, take the time to read my god damn post. I'm not any political affiliation. I said fascism has some upsides. I never identified as one. Thats what you pricks keep doing.
Sure sounded like you do.
Anyway, I'm not sure racism is necessarily an integral part of fascism, but violent repression of dissent, prohibition of freedom speech and abolition of democracy certainly are. Imo the racism most fascists engage in, is not the most objectionable part of that ideology.
I don't. Thats why I provided further explanation that you apparently did not read. And its pissing me off.
What? Praising Stalin's and Hitler's economic policies is supposed to convince me you're not a violently anti-democratic freedom-hater?
After a year, I just re-took the quiz. My fascist and nazi undertones remained constant, but my fundamental politics swung to the right by a landslide. I went from 67% Communist then to only 17% Communist now. I went from 67% Democrat then to only 33% Democrat today. I went from 50% Republican then to 75% Republican now. I increased from only 50% Anarchist to 83% Anarchist.
Again, this is surprisingly accurate. I've always been fascinated by, even appreciated fascism and the Nazis, so that doesn't come as a surprise. In '08 I voted for Obama. In the Nov 2 elections, I switched party lines and voted Republican. Over the last year, my political attitudes have evolved significantly.
A year ago I scored:
Democrat 67%
Communism 67%
Fascism 50%
Anarchism 50%
Republican 50%
Socialist 33%
Green 33%
Nazi 33%
Today I scored:
Anarchism 83%
Republican 75%
Fascism 50%
Nazi 33%
Socialist 33%
Green 33%
Democrat 33%
Communism 17%
Again, this is surprisingly accurate. I've always been fascinated by, even appreciated fascism and the Nazis, so that doesn't come as a surprise. In '08 I voted for Obama. In the Nov 2 elections, I switched party lines and voted Republican. Over the last year, my political attitudes have evolved significantly.
A year ago I scored:
Democrat 67%
Communism 67%
Fascism 50%
Anarchism 50%
Republican 50%
Socialist 33%
Green 33%
Nazi 33%
Today I scored:
Anarchism 83%
Republican 75%
Fascism 50%
Nazi 33%
Socialist 33%
Green 33%
Democrat 33%
Communism 17%
Then you should step away for awhile... take a breather. Don't get yourself lured into an infraction, ok?
ROFL. Do you not realize that their economic policies were immensely beneficial? Economics is totally different from the other aspects of political philosophy. If you connect the concept of a centrally planned economy with anti-democracy and hating freedom then you really missed the boat. As a matter of fact, you'd better start getting mad at Europe. And almost all of Asia. Pretty much the only pure free market is Singapore.
Ask any economist, historian, or political scientist on here and they'll tell you what I just did.
Thanks for the advice. Fortunately I'm not angry at the moment. Roger's attempt at baiting was mostly just funny. But I am working to get out of all this.
Not necessarily. But the real problem is that nobody lives forever.
So it's just a matter of "everybody sucks, so I should rule the world"? What are you, 11?
I discern it perfectly. But you seem to keep going on how it would be great to have the same dictatorial powers invested in someone (arguably, you) today. Which kinda invalidate your argument about the need to take into account historical changes when considering the politics of ancient Rome compared to more modern societies.
Thank you. I have my moments.
Apparently you lack all nuance in terms of political thought. Its also clear you apparently can't read. I told you my political philosophy encompasses almost every school of thought. Then I told you that you can never have something in full accordance with your beliefs (unless you happen to be a damn cookie cutter). Anything out there is going to suck. You can only prioritize which particular issues you are most concerned with.
Stop insulting me for ten seconds and open your mind to a wider world of politics than left vs right. Also, stop mischaracterizing me. If you have a question about something, ask it nicely to make sure you're on the right track. Rather than that you seem to be leaping wildly from point to point in a desire to hurt me.
My point is that the central government needs to have a level of authority allowing actions to be taken promptly under duress. With a pure democracy achieving results would be an arduous task and there wouldn't be any means of prompt action.
As a result, you need government powers in an executive. And that executive should have a bit more leeway than we give him (for practical purposes I'll have the executive be the president) now. If we want to work on problems, we need to have an executive with more authority to deal with them. Most systems are too politicized to allow that to happen, so what I'm saying is that the president would need wider purview while still remaining accountable to the legislature.
Also, FYI I do not want any such power. Your insinuation is another, as I see it from the pattern of your posting, deliberate assault on me. I can only assume that a diverse political view must threaten you in some way, otherwise you would be more open-minded. Instead you prefer to make up words to put in my mouth in some sort of feeble effort to make me look like an ass. I don't appreciate it at all.
My view on historical Rome is in no way invalidated by anything. It forms a basis of the concept of citizenship in most western nations, and is the prime example of a Republic held up for emulation. Times have changed, but the fact that crucifixion was once used in no way makes the political system any less significant or important for a modern view.
You are the one who seemed to invalidate any role of the Roman Republic as a positive historical example because of modern views on what is and is not permissible.
Yeah, hilarious.
I so fucking hate this argument "but Mussolini made the trains run on time", "but Hitler built the Autobahn", "but Stalin made crime disappear".
So what, and how? Do you know that the first KZs were built almost immediately on Hitler's rise to power? Dachau was opened on March 22nd, 1933! And what was it that powered the early Nazi economic boom? Arms build up! Preparation for the coming war! And stealing the Jews' money. How the hell can you seperate the warmongering and slavery in Nazi Germany economic policies from other policies?
And pretty much the same arguments go for Stalin also. In the 30s, the GULAG slave labour system was already running at full capacity, to say nothing of the repression and lack of freedom ordinary Russians had to suffer and their working conditions.
Please show me any objective economist, historian, or political scientist who would want to do like to replicate anything like that. Your glorification of murderous, totalitarian regimes is disgusting and pretty juvenile actually.
Baiting? I'm sorry some mod here feels the need to falsely accuse me of trolling, but it's incorrect. I wasn't trying to lure any response from you.
Similar threads
