| You are a Social Conservative (18% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (25% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Froggylady
- Just a girl trying to soak up as much of this life as possible. I'm a wife, mother, friend, and daughter.
9 comments:
was this a joke? or do you really want the government to regulate every single part of your life??
I believe it should be all or nothing. The questions asked related directly to current government programs, some programs that in my opinion are currently half assed and not doing anyone any good because there are not enough regulations. If people would stop depending on the government to support them financially, then I wouldn't care as much, but as long as I am paying money into a system, I want my money to go as I see fit and I happen to currently agree with the way the system is working.
I would agree with you that most programs are half assed. But I get worried when the government starts getting involved in personal issues. Will it get so extreme that if you don't go to church, you can't have children (this is actually a question on a proposed questionaire for people who want to have fertility treatments in Indiana). Will the media be censored? Books, magazines, or movies? How about the internet, will it be regulated? What about private thoughts? I'm all about government regulation to keep corporations in check (environmental laws, tax laws, FDA, drugs, etc), but not for regulating my private life.
Here's the definitation of Totalitarianism from Wikipedia:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian)
Totalitarianism is a typology employed by political scientists to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political ideology, and do not tolerate activities by individuals or groups such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals. They maintain themselves in power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, and widespread use of terror tactics. Critics of the concept contend that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments which are often classified as totalitarian may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, since they may hide a political process in which several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, and others, compete for power and influence.
That's a little scary to me. I don't want our country to live in 1984.
I went and retook the test and came out with about the same results, slighty different percentages, but still totalitarian and in paying close attention to the questions, I answered them honestly and I don't see how my answers would make an immediate jump to wanting complete government control.
For example, I believe that there should be regulations on the environment and farm subsidies. We are too dependant on other nations for things that can be produced safely right here in the US. I also believe that you shouldn't have more children until you can provide for the ones you do have. Stricter government regulations on welfare and foodstamps would mean that healthy young adults could work to earn their living while elder retired citizens could recieve enough to actually help them sustain life. I believe that if there are these kinds of regulations, the government should provide the birth control.
It is obvious that as a nation we can't just run around and do what we want. Look at our nation now, and everyone blames the government as it is. All the elected officials are trying to do is to keep everyone happy which is impossible when you are dealing with a nation that doesn't appreciate the freedoms it has. Someone will ALWAYS be offended, fell stepped on or not agree with what is going on. So why not regulate some things to make the quality of life for the masses better?
When it comes to church, just because somebody doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that they need to make it impossible for anyone to pray or to come together in unison with one like thought - at football games it's for the safety of the players, in school it's for the safety and willingness to learn - are these such horrible thoughts? Religion shouldn't be forced on anyone, but people as a whole need to be more accepting of other people's points of views. The government has no business stepping in here, unless it is to authorize the allowance of united good thoughts in schools.
As long as democracy is still in play, a totalitarian government is impossible, but a melding of the two might be just what is needed to help this nation become unified, or tolerant of others. I laugh when I hear a "liberal" be against the war in Iraq because they are always the ones wanting more freedom, but by protesting the war all they are saying is that those people don't deserve the same rights as are taken for granted here in the U.S. How can you tell me totalitarianism is wrong and bad and scary, yet expect other nations to live under murderous dictators without intervention from the one nation that has the means to help?
I personally am against the war because I don't think we should be imposing our viewpoints on other countries. Just because democracy (and I use that term lightly, because I don't think our government has acted much like a democracy lately) appears to work for America doesn't mean it will work everywhere else. Do I think Saddam was a good guy? No. But I don't think that gives us the right to be a bully and force our form of government on another country. Had Iraq actually attacked us, I would back the war because in that case, we're defending our country. I am all for a war with AFGANASTAN and catching Osama Bin Laden and the "real" terrorists. But making up an excuse to go to war just to take out Saddam (and control the oil supply, which I'm convinced is the REAL reason we're there) doesn't cut it in my book, especially without the backing of the UN. I think that the whole war is fishy and people are being told that it's for freedom and democracy and all those other conservative buzzwords, but I really think it's for the administration's personal and business agendas. If the war was justified, there would be a lot more people and countries supporting it.
I do agree with your viewpoints on imports, foodstamps, birth control. And I also agree that SOMEONE will always be offended. It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time. These things wil never happen with this administration. Birth control being SUPPLIED by the government?? The religious right would have a fit and there would go all of Bush's funding.
As far as religion goes.. Spirituality is a private thing to me. I personally do not agree with organized religion (I was raised Catholic but do not agree with it). But I am not an athiest. I cringe when people talk about public prayer because praying to me is a very personal thing. Public prayer, to me, marganlizes it and tries to put it into one "correct" format. Wouldn't it work just as well for each person to think privately? People that pray are going to pray, regardless if there's a circle or moment of silence or whatever. So what's the need? Praying, to me, is not a solution and will not affect a certain outcome. It's just a way to make people feel better and safe. I prayed every day that my dad was sick for him to get better.. but it didn't do a damn thing.
I also cringe at people who believe that the bible is the absolute truth, instead of an interpretation and/or book of moral stories. There are some very extremist religious people in this country that are giving a lot of money to the Bush administration and I'm terrified of what might happen to science and our country as a whole. Should I be shunned from society because I don't go to church? Why should I listen to "Christians" that tell me I'm going to hell because I don't believe in Jesus. Why is their form of God better than mine? The beauty of God is that it can be whatever you want. A man, mother nature, the sun, an elephant with 10 arms, whatever. NO ONE knows for a fact if God exists and so I get pissed when people tell me that my beliefs are wrong.
I don't trust this administration. We're spending too much money, we're letting business get away with too much, the croyneyism is unbelievable, and I'm terrified that we've lost our system of checks and balances. Every time I hear something from this administration, I feel like I'm in an alternate universe. "Intelligent Design"? Give me a break. Terry Shiavo? Good lord, let the woman rest in peace already! Gay marriage? Who the hell CARES if two people who love each other want to get married? Tax cuts to the impossibly rich when there's a war going on? How does THAT make sense?
I could go on, but I need to get a project out the door, so I'll respond later. =)
I am very biased to be in support of war because of experiences that have been shared with me by C. He was over there twice (as you know) and regardless of what the motive is of the beaurocrats in Washington, the outcome is a nation that is slowly taking control of itself. Should it be a democratic government? I don't know, that's up to them, but the fact remains is that now they can choose their government. I do not agree with our continued presence, but I feel that it is for another agenda than forcing democracy.
I do not like the idea organized religion (as far as labels go - Baptist, Methodist, etc...) either, but I do agree with many of the moral standpoints of Christianity. God is God is God, no matter what shape or form you apply to him. That is what upsets me about the different "religions" - if you believe in a higher power, then who cares what you call it? However, I don't feel that morals can be abandoned and considered a religious thing, because they aren't. Morals are a basic knowledge of right and wrong and I think this nation doesn't have enough morals. If it takes religion to provide morals, then somebody somewhere is screwing up. The United States is too much focused on what can I do for me? What is going to make me more money, more powerful, more beautiful, more more more for me me me. All it takes to know morals is to stop focusing on oneself and realize how their decision will affect others and then make the decision. Two of my favorite lessons from church were "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and my favorite Proverb "A merry heart does good like a medicine, a poor spirit dries the bones".
The way to get the religious fanatics to accept the government provided birth control is to just tell them that it is to help prevent a large number of abortions, and that it will also help ensure that there will be fewer poor folk to dirty up their neighborhood. That should do it right? (Please do not take that last part seriously, it's hard to express sarcasm in type)
I honestly don't remember a thing that the Clinton administration did for this nation. I do know that during his presidency, the military, you know, the ones that volunteer to give their lives to protect the nation, many of them were on food stamps. People in the military couldn't afford to support their families, but they could give their lives when they were attacked in Yemen,and more were sent to the USS Cole to provide protection. I don't agree with everything the Bush administration has done, and doubt that there will ever be a president I agree with 100%, but for now, I believe he is doing a good job, showing some moral stability and I know that the ideas I find ludacris will be shot down by the House or Senate. If a man wants to marry a man, or a woman a woman, whatever who cares, it's fine by me. However, I really don't want to hear the bitching about the time it takes to get a divorce because in my experience many gay relationships don't last that long. I know that there are many that have lasted longer than my marriage and that is wonderful, but more laws shouldn't change if gay marriage is accepted.
I'm sick of this whole Republican, Democrat BS and am ready for an independant with his/her own financial support to step up.
It seems like we actually agree on a lot of the same issues, we just have different ideas about how they should be handled.
It's funny that you say "The United States is too much focused on what can I do for me? What is going to make me more money, more powerful, etc" and "I believe he is doing a good job, showing some moral stability " in the same paragraph. Because I think that the Bush administration (and republicans in general) are TOTALLY all about more power and more money. Do you not see the power trip they're on? And all of the money (*cough* halliburton *couch*) they're making?
I know you have more military experience than I do, but do you honestly think that the military has it better right now? There are still tons of military on foodstamps, without medical benefits, that can't support their families. But a typical soldier right now is a lot more likely to die in war. Would you still back the war if your husband had been killed? Would you give up his life so that the administration can have more power? more oil?
I'm very confused because your ideas and beliefs make it seem like you shouldn't support the current administration. Do you honestly think Bush is an honest and moral man? How about Cheney? Rumsfield? any of the administration? In my mind, they are all power-hungry, money-hungry people who are using fear to control the masses. I don't believe anything that they say - I think it's propaganda and a load of crap. They're taking advantage of trusting, genuinely moral people. How can such a "christian" man believe that killing thousands of iraqai's is ok, that the death penalty is ok, that letting poor people in new orleans die is ok. but using stem cells from embryos that are going to be discarded anyway to save peoples lives is wrong. that it's wrong to turn off the machine of a brain dead woman. that it's wrong for terminally ill people to end their lives. I just don't understand the logic.
Democrats aren't about money? I think right now everyone is about money.
The issue in New Orleans was not President Bush's fault. Because of separation of the federal government and state government, the state actually has to ask for assistance before the President can activate the military to step in. It's one of the checks in place to prevent a militant state. The governor of Louisianna, the mayor of New Orleans and that fabulous FEMA director couldn't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to take the proper measures. The people of New Orleans were doomed from the start when a mandatory evacuation wasn't ordered soon enough. As for why so many of them were poor? Well, that's a question for the local officials because without the Totalitarian government you fear so much, it isn't any of the federal government's business to butt into a city's problem.
If my husband had been killed in Iraq, I believe I would still support the military action in Iraq. I can't say for sure because I'm not in that situation (Thank God). I would support it because I know that he believed in what he was doing and he believed that he was doing wonderful things by freeing those people from tyranny. When he first deployed and we were saying our goodbyes, he told me "I'm off to do good things honey, it's why I became a Marine" and when I would recieve a letter or call from him from Baghdad, he would always say that they were doing good things or were off to do more good things. I can't have any other view of the war, and if we are doing it for oil, what does it matter because Iraq didn't have any income from exports until we freed them from Saddam. So now, they are paid the going rate for their barrels of oil and there's another source for oil so that we don't have to go drilling in Alaska (which isn't that what the Democrats keep fighting?). That argument against the war is confusing to me. I believe that the oil is a benefit, not the reason for the war. As for WOMD, we may never know what was truly found (or not) or where they went (SYRIA), but either way things in Iraq are better, economically and socially.
As for stem cell research, do you really think it would stop at embryo's that are created in a lab, or ones that are otherwise aborted and not turn into another way for somebody to make a quick buck? That is my argument against it, without heavy regulations, it could get ugly fast. I am for the death penalty because while it isn't necessarily right, it is just. I am personally pro-life, but believe everyone has the right to make their own decision. I personally would not have an abortion, but I'm not going to take that right away from somebody else. Late term abortion (Clinton) is completely unacceptable for any reason other than extreme medical difficulties that would result in the death of mother and baby. Abortion is not a form of birth control and shouldn't be used as such.
The Bush administration uses fear to control the masses? Haha. I don't know of anyone that actually fears the Bush administration, maybe cringe and some of the things it says / does, but fear it? All news is propaganda. We'll never get the truth from the current news affiliates. That's because they have taken the 1st amendment too far and want to put a spin on everything which basically turns minor issues into lies.
I don't think people fear the administration - I think the administration is using fear (of terrorists, gays, whatever) to get people to go along with their agenda.
I admire your husband for doing what he thinks is the right thing. I'm sad that him having to fight and be exposed to whatever he was exposed to probably could have been avoided.
Why do you think that all news is propaganda? I think it's because the people that own the news stations want to make more money, so in turn they want to pay less taxes and the way to do that is to make the administration happy. I can't stand to watch the regular news channels at all because of the spin. I get my news from the internet (usually bbc or reuters, because i think they're the least biased), bill mahar,and the daily show. it's sad that i trust foreign sources and a satirical show more so that any regular tv channel.
As for the hurricane. How on earth did a guy like Brown become the FEMA director anyway? It bothers me that there seem to be no controls on who is elected to very important positions in this company.
As a democrat, I'm not personally about money. I am willing to pay my fair share of taxes, providing that EVERYONE (and espically corporations) pay their FAIR share as well. I don't see democrats blatently making money on this war (again, halliburton). I believe that there should be a balance in government spending. How does it make sense to keep spending and spending and not have enough money come in from taxes? The money for this war and the hurricane has to come from SOMEWHERE. Clinton worked hard to correct the deficit left by Reagan and Bush Sr only to have Bush completely screw it up. http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html. (incidently, factcheck.org is a great nonpartisan website).
Post a Comment