An acquaintaince recently labelled me as "right wing extremist".
The catalyst for all of this is the state of labour talks between the City of Toronto, and its public outside workers union, basically those who take care of parks, manage our water systems, garbagemen, etc. I took the stance that wages for certain positions were getting too high compared to the private sector. Specifically, I was targetting jobs that did not require a higher education beyond high schools. The garbagemen in particular get my scorn, as an IT professional, I was dismayed to find out they make as much as I do. With higher absenteeism rates. With bad attitudes. And they got the best benefits. And so on.
This was never the case, of course. Years ago, I always believed that if you wanted a better life in yourself, you always needed to invest in time (and possibly money) in order to better yourself and make more money. Recent years of collective bargaining that favoured the Outside City workers (the Garbagemen in particular) have shifted away from this. My personal viewpoint has become that it is disconcerting to see my hard work for a better education and training has seemed to be all for naught, why didn't I forgo my investment to be a Garbageman and make the same money?
Then there was the Occupy protest that hit Toronto. Almost immediately, I did not identify with the protesters. While I understand (and agree with) the message, the method to distribute this message (by flouting the law and causing distress to people in their immediate surroundings) strikes me more as whining instead of trying to actually come with a solution and not making a big mess in a city park in the process. It bothers me that us Taxpayers now have to pay to rehabilitate this screwed up park, not to mention paying overtime for the cops who provided security during this time. (The police don't escape my scorn either, how do you ticket a poor guy in a broken down car who is simply waiting for a boost?)
When I come to think of it, my political viewpoints have changed the more I get older. My wife agrees with me, years ago, she would have supported the NDP (socialist), now she is more Liberal (centre) while I have transitioned from Liberal to more Conservative viewpoints.
Everybody changes their views the older we get. So where's yours? Here is my updated political compass as http://www.politicalcompass.org. I seem to be ever creeping towards that political bullseye!!!
Economic Left/Right: -0.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Sanitation is always in demand, and probably not many people like to do it. Not that you mightn't have any point at all, but couldn't that be part of why they're well paid and have good benefits? Because they provide a service that's perpetually needed but which nobody really enjoys doing?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54
well assuming im looking at things backwards, im still legally Chaotic Good. derp.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Economic Left/Right: -6.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95
I don't think I've changed much.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I seem to be bucking your trend. It's not what you'd call a huge data set, but I've done the grand Flare political compass test in 2007, 2009 and just now.
Year:......................2007;....2009;....2011 Age:........................23;......25;.......27 Economic Left/Right:...-3.00;...-4.00;...-4.88 Social Lib/Auth:.........-2.50;...-1.54;...-3.74
So, I'm getting steadily more leftie with age and moving away from the centre. Now, I have no interest in bringing down capitolism, singing the peoples flag or even joining the union. But I do think that living in a country with an NHS does make me a bit pinko, and I am doing a PhD, so I suppose I do have a tendency to question the recieved wisdom, so that's fair.
Looking back I do seem to be surprised each time.
My girlfriend got: Economic Left/Right: -5.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54
but she did question the logic and talked through almost every question. She has been at a party though.
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
Economic Left/Right: -8.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
I'm getting hippie-r. *flex*
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Economic Left/Right -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -2.26
Sounds about right. I'll tell you right now though, being a liberal in the military is more or less heresy in the eyes of some.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Economic Left/Right: -1.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00
Update the chart, Tim!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Economic Left/Right: -3.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56
Do I get an award for biggest swing leftward? Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
No you're farther left than me! How does that happen? You started left, went waaay right, and now waaaay left. Weird.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Bloody hell, I forgot how loaded some of those questions are. For the record though : -
Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26
I appear to have made a dash for the far left. :/
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I keep getting the adjustments for windage and elevation off. But I'm still shooting a tight grouping.
Economic Left/Right: -0.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
I'm actually more amused at Mucus' readings on that chart. Nice little spiral he has going.
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
I can't believe it, this thing again? I should update my own score. It's almost a tradition.
Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97
Fuck, I'm a hippie by now.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
i wonder what this woman would rank?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
My current Political Compass rating: Economic Left/Right: -8.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51
I think i'm becoming more cynical and less trusting of authority...someone please update the chart with my stats?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Ehh, might as well too:
Economic Left/Right: -7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
Interesting. I wasn't expecting to see my previous trend continue; I kinda expected a slight rightward drift, not a leftward one.
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
I'm beginning to think that, somehow, world affairs are pushing our opinions both to a more socialist concept of economy, and just like Jason said, more distrustful of those in positions of power.
But I also think that world affairs on themselves didn't provoke that change in opinions. We all are getting our news on the web, right? But not only from mainstream media, but also from blogs, social networks, videos uploaded by the web users... The flurry of information might be afftecting the way we were thinking, a set of ideas modeled more in the shape the mainstream media intended (and this doesn't mean it's always intentional from the media to create a mindset, but it's obvious by now that the fact exists), but now, we're more in contact with different points of view, and more exposed to the (dare I say) negative consequences of economic and political management, thanks to that change in exposure to the news.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
For the record, I've *never* trusted anyone in power. Mostly because you generally shouldn't trust the type of person that seeks power in the first place.
As for acquiring a socialist viewpoint...personally I don't think socialism is workable in the long run, however appealing it might look from the POV of a socio-economic nadir.
Not that pure capitalism works either. I mean if things continue as they are then we'll just end up rich back in a feudal society with a bunch of fat, moronic aristocrats running everything...we're probably not so far from that as it is. Such in the nature of entrenched bureaucracy.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Ah yes, as Douglas Adams so succinctly put it: "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctor Jonas: I'm beginning to think that, somehow, world affairs are pushing our opinions both to a more socialist concept of economy, and just like Jason said, more distrustful of those in positions of power.
But I also think that world affairs on themselves didn't provoke that change in opinions. We all are getting our news on the web, right? But not only from mainstream media, but also from blogs, social networks, videos uploaded by the web users... The flurry of information might be afftecting the way we were thinking, a set of ideas modeled more in the shape the mainstream media intended (and this doesn't mean it's always intentional from the media to create a mindset, but it's obvious by now that the fact exists), but now, we're more in contact with different points of view, and more exposed to the (dare I say) negative consequences of economic and political management, thanks to that change in exposure to the news.
I do agree with all that but I'm looking at things through a slightly different perspective- American (and I suspect the world's) perceptions are swayed more by the "media barons" that control the news than the actual facts themselves- you can read a lot of the same spin towards wars or against an administration going back to the early 1900's (at least) when we got such manufactured crisis as the Spanish American War.
Many of the same fear-based talking points are still used today- oh, the boogeyman threat that acts a fulcrum to action is a rotating foreign menace (Muslim extremists instead of Spainard imperialists or Maoist commies, for example), but the song has the same beat and the dance moves are very familliar.
Today's media barons- the Bloombergs and Murdochs, Koch Brothers and whoever else are part of the same sort of clique that existed at the turn of the last century...and their public visibility will wax and wane from public perception much the same as their predecessors did, with new players assuming old roles.
If anything, it's amazing how very much like our 1900's ancestors we still are in opinion and gulibility- all the same campaign talking points, media hysteria and editorials and even celebrity gossip to sell news when the world stage seems unpalatable.
All this is not to suggest some long-term conspiracy- far from it. It's people with wealth exerting their influence by all means available to them for their own ends- and it's not all mindless selfishness either: I'm cerain that people like David Koch honestly feel justified in their actions and personal morals.
As Rev points out,"Such in the nature of entrenched bureaucracy".
Thus the real question becomes- how do we, as a country, move out of this cycle? How would we even know that trying to change is not itself part of the cycle- today's OWS gatherings paralleling the 60's protests during time of war, etc.
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: For the record, I've *never* trusted anyone in power. Mostly because you generally shouldn't trust the type of person that seeks power in the first place.
As a friend of mine puts it, there are lots of people who go into politics to cleanse the cesspool of corruption and realize they like the water just fine how it is.
And I used that Douglas Adams quote in a final exam once. Did pretty well for myself.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well put Mr. Abbadon.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
-6.88 / -7.08, by the way. I don't think I care for the way my line is looping back on itself.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Amazing how much our positions have changed over the years- many of us hurtling to the lower left of the compass...with a few zig zagging all over.
I wonder, if we looked at what we were up to in each recorded year, would we find that personal or external events more shaped our political opinions? After all, most of the questions are not policy specific...which makes it such a useful tool: cutting out bias towards a party or group.
Most people (supposedly) become more conservative as they get older, but we're bucking that trend (generally).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I tend to think personal wealth has about as much to do with conservatism as age does. That plus upbringing and your immediate day-to-day environment of course. I don't put much stock in news sources having much of an overt influence on a person's outlook. In my experience people tend to seek out a source of information who's interpretation of reality compliments their own.
Personally I'm always suspicious of any article I agree with too much. Or at least feels like it's playing to my prejudices a little too closely.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I don't put much stock in news sources having much of an overt influence on a person's outlook. In my experience people tend to seek out a source of information who's interpretation of reality compliments their own."
They do, of course, but I think it still contributes. If you have an opinion, and you seek out sources which support that opinion, it will serve to make that opinion stronger.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^Uncontested. Nevertheless, you have to already think a certain way (whichever way that may be) in the first place. All these news sources do in re-enforce what's already there. Not to say that people can't be manipulated of course, far from it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As Newt cold tell you, negative enforcment stays with the news cycle far more than anything positive- call them all traitors!
The more slanderous and outrageous the accuzation, the more time and energy the accused has to spend defending against it....and the name of the mudslinger rarely sticks like the mud itself. Here's Newt's own words on how to manipulate the issues.
For fun, see how mant times an hour Fox uses these terms.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I don't know why I'm missing from the charts, since I'm the one who always remains closest to dead center.
Economic Left/Right: 0.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.72
Of course, like Saltah'na, that just means I get called a right-wing extremist.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, you weren't on the chart because, as far as I know, this is the first time you've posted your score. Unless you changed your name at some point, and I didn't realize it.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I don't know why I'm missing from the charts, since I'm the one who always remains closest to dead center.
Economic Left/Right: 0.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.72
Of course, like Saltah'na, that just means I get called a right-wing extremist.
I'm pretty close to the bullseye myself. My curve made a nice little smiley face even.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
double
[ December 11, 2011, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Guardian 2000 ]
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Well, you weren't on the chart because, as far as I know, this is the first time you've posted your score. Unless you changed your name at some point, and I didn't realize it.
(Searches ...)
Ah, crap. My bad, then. I did post in '09, but elsewhere . . . my Feb. '09 was Eco 1.12 Soc -0.51. In Aug. '10 (later in that same thread), Eco 0.88 and Soc -.05.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Sanitation is always in demand, and probably not many people like to do it. Not that you mightn't have any point at all, but couldn't that be part of why they're well paid and have good benefits? Because they provide a service that's perpetually needed but which nobody really enjoys doing?
I do respect that as a valid point, and I do understand that it is a messy business. The problem that I have revolves around a sense of entitlement, in which they believe that they are the core of the city and nothing else, and therefore they deserve benefits as I, as a person working in a Private Company, can only dream of. I guess it is the constant arrogance of their media ads that pisses me off. My personal belief is that if you hate your job, leave, and find a better one. Don't make us pay for your piss-poor attitude, so suck it up. There are plenty of unemployed people who would take their jobs with lesser pay and benefits if it means that they can have some income.
Cartman: May I remind you that this issue has been in the front burner of Local Toronto Politics for more than 10 years. So yeah, I have brought it up in the past, but the more things try to "change" the more they stay the same. Truth is, we do have a mayor who is willing to do something about it, even if I don't agree with all of his viewpoints.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Maybe try actually talking to your own harbage man sometime- you'll almost certainly find him to be more than the conclusion you've lept to based on what? Ads on TV you dont like? It's not as though the garbage men filmed them.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I have actually. My own experience finds them to be rude and arrogant. They won't pick up your garbage unless you have it packaged the way they want it to be (which way that is just baffles me). They'll also threaten to permanently skip your driveway if you ask them why they didn't pick up your garbage on a particular day. This is exactly what happened to a co-worker after his garbage was skipped, apparently a racoon punched a hole in one of the garbage bags and the garbageman refused to take it out (it wasn't torn to shreds). When the co-worker asked him why his garbage was skipped, the garbageman drove off and didn't collect my co-worker's garbage for four weeks until he received an "apology". For what? A simple question?
This is the entitlement that I really dislike, especially amongst public sector employees. Pull this crap on the private sector and you'd be on your way out. Do this as a garbageman? No worries, you get reassigned elsewhere with the same pay.
As for the ads, they were commissioned by the union and portray the garbagemen as friendly, hard-working people. Perception is not always reality.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
But you can easily avoid them if you like- and it's not like you want their supposedly cushy job or anything....right?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Their job should not be cushy. Period.
Unfortunately, the union has bought slots on both TV and radio to broadcast their propaganda. So really can't avoid them either.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Also Jason, I wanted to address this particular point of yours that I really like:
"I wonder, if we looked at what we were up to in each recorded year, would we find that personal or external events more shaped our political opinions?"
From 2001 to 2005, I had no career, and was pretty much struggling to make a living with very few accomplishments, and virtually no help from friends or family. I have had personal setbacks of which it took time for me to recover from. Starting from 2006, I was able to grow my career, and while I still had some monumental setbacks, again I was able to recover, and again without any help from friends or family.
Due to these events, I have since taken a mentality against the welfare state given that to obtain goals in life requires hard work on your own. You won't always get what you want, but you take your own accomplishments, however small or large they can be, and grow on it. I have started to tire of people who say they can't do anything more to improve their life and always rely on others (read government) to help them when, I believe, the ability to help themselves is always within reach.
Toronto's outside workers union are basically begging to maintain their standard of living instead of adapting to ever changing economic conditions. That is called entitlement.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, maybe it's that way in Toronto- never having been there, I have no experience with your city. Maybe garbagemen have it easy there- down here that job seems to shorten lifespans (due to fumes and exposure to god knows what). And no, it's not easy to just chuck it and find something else to do.
Speaking for things down my way, there are millions of people hunting for any employment possible- and many have gotten the idea to return to school to improve their chances at scoring a good paying job, not realising that hundreds of thousands of college graduates are already out there looking for anything- and they have experience! And of course, the people making student loans have not become any less predatory- that new two year degre is going to cost upwards of 40K on average. That's one big student loan payment on top of everything else- and that's assuming you find a job!
Then add in having a family to support...I see no wrong in society helping those people. they are neither lazy nor looking for a handout- asking for help for your family's sake, at the cost of pride, is itself a kind of nobility. Of course there are abusers of the system, but they are the extreme rarity, not the norm- possibly that's why the media fixates on them.
Youd never know it from television, but things down here in the states are still very dire for many families- while campaign contributors can rest assured their excesses are insured at taxpayer expense- the same taxpayers big business fires and outsources the job overseas of.
If Bank Of america, Citigroup and dozens of other billion dollar companies can get free money from the government, why not real people trying to survive? Those are the people villified as lazy and somehow a drain on society- that those people need to suck it up and "do what it takes" to survive.
Fuck the people that say that shit- all the armchair cable pundits and congressional milionaires can go to hell.
As to your own experiences, did you ever look into public assistance when times were tough for you? It could be that there were recources available to you that you did not take advantage of.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Yes, I did take public assistance. Employment insurance to be exact. You have to pay in to the system in order to qualify for this kind of assistance.
The big difference is that I saw that as a fallback and a tool to assist me while I was looking for a way to make ends meet. The first time, I was able to top up my benefits by taking part in a job creation program provided by the government. It didn't work out exactly as I planned, but it did help. The second time, I did not qualify as I was considered to be in a growth industry (IT) as well as my experience. The Occupy movement has made statements that such government assistance should be extended to everyone, regardless of their situation. I do not agree with that sentiment, as it encourages the lazy and increases the sense of entitlement that the Occupy movement is so full of.
Now I don't disagree with all forms of government assistance, and you did hit the nail about abusers in the system. I also will state that in both years that I have relied on public assistance (2002 and 2009), there has been no change in unemployment benefits (not even accounting for inflation), so I agree that it is unfortunate. But I did manage to survive and am now back to my feet again. I may be in a lesser position now than I was 3 years ago, but again, you learn to adapt and try to grow within your situation. The Occupy movement does not encourage people to try to grow from their situation and is basically holding people back from their full potential.
As for the banks, I do believe that the bailouts were necessary in order to minimize collateral damage, because if they did not receive the bailouts, the damage to the economy would be far worse than the value of these bailouts. That said, the banks need to understand that these bailouts should be considered a LOAN, and therefore needs to be paid back to the government. I do not see that happening, and that I believe is very unfortunate. If GM and Chrysler were able to secure bailout funds and pay them back to the government, why haven't banks? There's your drain right there. Not to mention that they were the ones who got us in this mess due to the silly loopholes and lack of regulation on who to give money to. How can ANYONE extend mortgages to people who are not qualified? Whose boneheaded idea was this?
I think part of it is that Canada's laws do not allow the financial and employment abuse that is rampant in the states. This is why our banks are in better shape, and the lower taxes and benefits here are a tool to keep companies here instead of being outsourced overseas. You could say that what the U.S. is going through is the result of rampant free market capitalism, but there were no rules in place to keep things in check and that is why I believe you guys are in this problem that you are in now.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:The Occupy movement has made statements that such government assistance should be extended to everyone, regardless of their situation. I do not agree with that sentiment, as it encourages the lazy and increases the sense of entitlement that the Occupy movement is so full of.
I dont know where you get your news from but all the interviews I've seen with the people at OWS and the people I personally know at Occupy Miami have no such "sense of entitlement". They're not looking for a free ride- what most of them are looking for is a bit of fair play- that the people resposible for the loss of so many jobs and wealth face prosecution, not record bonuses. The other major desire (which I also share) is for a constitional ammendment banning campaign contributions over a certain dollar amount- and a overruling of the Citizens United decision (which only such an ammendment can accomplish). A means of accountibility and transparantcy, in other words to the voters- a return to the founding principle of "One person one vote" wherein a small percentage (say one percent) holds the political decisions of the majority hostage- deciding everything from social programs to which wars to fight, based on their own desires and greed.
I have yet to see anyone asking to never work again- or even for European style protections- only for the means to cover basic needs while looking for a job- you know, the jobs that are being outsources with help from US taxpayers, which the unemployed certainly were until recently.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:According to the lawsuit, Fannie and Freddie misrepresented their exposure to subprime loans in reports, speeches and congressional testimony.
Fannie told investors in 2007 that it had roughly $4.8 billion worth of subprime loans on its books, or just 0.2 percent of its portfolio. That same year, Mudd told two congressional panels that Fannie’s subprime loans represented didn’t exceed 2.5 percent of its business.
The SEC says Fannie actually had about $43 billion worth of products targeted to borrowers with weak credit, or 11 percent of its holdings.
Freddie told investors in late 2006 that it held between $2 billion and $6 billion of subprime mortgages on its books. And Syron, in a 2007 speech, said Freddie had “basically no subprime exposure,” according to the suit.
The SEC says its holdings were actually closer to $141 billion, or 10 percent of its portfolio in 2006, and $244 billion, or 14 percent, by 2008
So, they lied under oath to Congress, then acted shocked when the huse of cards collapsed and THEN asked for $150 billion in taxpayer money to stay afloat, then patted themselves on the back for saving their companies and collected obscene bonuses for doing such a great job.
quote:Mudd was paid more than $10 million in salary and bonuses in 2007, according to company statements. Syron made more than $18 million in 2007, according to company statements.
18 million bucks to lie to Congress and make the financial system tank? Good deal if you can get it, I guess.
This- THIS is what people are protesting- the fact that until now these guys were never even charged with a crime- and it's so unlikely that they'll face crimminal charges as to make the entire affair a publicity stunt- even if they were fined millions each, what would it possibly matter to men that made 10 million dollars or more yearly?
This is why the system is totally broken.
Best of all- pundits on the right will call this "class warfare" as though these assholes are being persecuted.
Another almost impossible to believe news... Direct Elections Are A THREAT To America! The old fear of "Voter Fraud" to supress...voters strikes yet again! Why does anyone listen to a man that seems to be a human/turtle hybrid? Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:The Occupy movement has made statements that such government assistance should be extended to everyone, regardless of their situation. I do not agree with that sentiment, as it encourages the lazy and increases the sense of entitlement that the Occupy movement is so full of.
I dont know where you get your news from but all the interviews I've seen with the people at OWS and the people I personally know at Occupy Miami have no such "sense of entitlement". They're not looking for a free ride- what most of them are looking for is a bit of fair play- that the people resposible for the loss of so many jobs and wealth face prosecution, not record bonuses. The other major desire (which I also share) is for a constitional ammendment banning campaign contributions over a certain dollar amount- and a overruling of the Citizens United decision (which only such an ammendment can accomplish). A means of accountibility and transparantcy, in other words to the voters- a return to the founding principle of "One person one vote" wherein a small percentage (say one percent) holds the political decisions of the majority hostage- deciding everything from social programs to which wars to fight, based on their own desires and greed.
I have yet to see anyone asking to never work again- or even for European style protections- only for the means to cover basic needs while looking for a job- you know, the jobs that are being outsources with help from US taxpayers, which the unemployed certainly were until recently.
Perhaps you hadn't been keeping up with the news of the Occupy movement in Toronto, but the statements that I mentioned were the EXACT statements that came from the Toronto protest. There is a lot of criticism that the Canadian Occupy movements did not share the same message as the original Wall Street protesters. In fact, the Toronto movement was basically accused of trying to find something to protest about and it was not necessarily the same views as Wall Street. Why? Because the Canadian financial system was not such a screwup, their original message held less merit here. Our economic situation was not as bad as yours, not as many people unemployed, etc. They decided to protest anyway, and if anything, they HURT the original OWS movement instead of helped. If anything, the OWS movement should have disavoved the Toronto movement. Some food for thought, most of the Toronto protesters didn't camp out at the park, a Toronto Police infrared camera showed that the tents were EMPTY at night. So where did these protesters go? Back to their comfy homes for a nice meal and a shower. That effectively nullified their protest. One other thing, guess who assisted in bankrolling this protest? The same Toronto Outside Workers Union. Again, the Toronto Occupy protest was and will always be illegitimate.
Don't get me wrong, the issues that you have mentioned are big problems indeed and that so many people have basically gotten away with murder while so many others were affected by the financial meltdown (myself included, indirectly). My problem is that the protests may not be the most effective method of addressing these issues, especially, in our case, the true "message" runs the risk of being diluted by illegitimate forms of protest. Here is where I believe government regularion is absolutely needed, unfortunately, your GOP is not helping matters by actually SIDING with your broken financial system. Why is the GOP trying to protect the companies that got us into this mess instead of condemning them?
Obama is indeed a wonderful president. Too bad he is about to be run roughshod by events that were never under his control, and never truly his fault.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Honestly, I was not aware there even was an Occupy Toronto- I figured you were talking about the Occupy wall Street people, who are villified by BLoomberg and Murdoch's media empires (both billionaires for irony).
Looks like we got our wires crossed on this.
If they are really just saying they sould live off the state and not have to work...well that's crazyland.
As to Obama- every one I know ns tired of him comprimising on everything and the Democrats caving like a bunch of spineless jellyfish. Even when they have the moral hig ground- like a ONE percent surtax on everything over a million dollars of personal revenue to pay for a tax break for the middle class...they cave.
We want Obama to fight goddamn it! If he loses the election, it'll be on the perception of weakness that assholes like Romney are playing up- repeating lies like how Omama supposedly went all over the worls apologizing for America's actions.
Politiface called that a "Pants on Fire" lie- their highest score for bullshitters.
I'm rambling incoherently now as I need to go to sleep....I'll blather more in ten hours or so,
G'night, Flarites!
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
They are not saying they should live off the state, but rather they deserve a "comfortable life" at the expense of everyone else, no matter what kind of "occupation" they are in, no matter how lazy they may truly be.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I don't recall anyone in the Occupy movement saying they want a cozy life at the expense of others, but hey, that's the way a lot of corporate execs have been living in these tough economic times. Maybe the Toronto Occupiers are just following their lead.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, I found myself doing this again.
Economic Left/Right: -7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18
Compared to the chart for the last fourteen years, this is ridiculous!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I have drifted a touch left, which seems rather odd. In any case, remember the below when they tell you Tea Party folks are loony anti-gubment right-wingers:
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 0.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36
I never made dead center on the left/right before. Score!
Now continue posting, Commies and Monarchists!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Compared to the chart for the last fourteen years, this is ridiculous!
Correct me if I am wrong, but based on the member chart from Page 2, shouldn't you have whiplash?
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Economic Left/Right: -4.5 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't really want to go through this whole quiz again, but I recently did one that tells you how closely you're aligned with the presidential candidates, and I think it told me I was 98% in agreement with Bernie Sanders. And something like 4% for Rick Santorum, which was distressingly high.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Santorum's grimace-y, strangely angry creepy grin is known to leave his face at night and terrorize small children, preparing for the day when it and Biden's million-buck smile will have their final battle for supremacy.
Incidentally, there is now another version of this online that uses the same questions but solves the problem of having folks like me dead center by tossing the middle-dwellers way off to the right and literally having "Liberalism" in the center, with Progressivism to its right!
2002 Economic Left/Right: -5.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3
2006 Economic Left/Right: -4.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
2013 Economic Left/Right: -5.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
2015 Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85
Wow, I'm still drifting in the same direction. Interesting.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: And something like 4% for Rick Santorum, which was distressingly high.
Look at it this way, it means Santorum is about 4% sane. Does that sound more likely? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Given Santorum's history? Not especially.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I have drifted a touch left, which seems rather odd. In any case, remember the below when they tell you Tea Party folks are loony anti-gubment right-wingers:
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 0.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36
I never made dead center on the left/right before. Score!
Now continue posting, Commies and Monarchists!
Thread revive!
Six years later and a lot of things having occurred in the world, and now I supposedly drifted a bit more left and a bit more authoritarian, but still exceedingly close to dead-center. Notably, it's about a .65 drift in both axes
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -0.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31
For kicks, I also did a "binary run" where every answer was given "strongly" . . . at which point I landed 0.88 to the right (a mere 1.4 swing) with no change in authoritarianism.
[ June 02, 2021, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Guardian 2000 ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
Fascinating. I got the exact same score economically, but swung a fair bit more libertarian socially. Probably a reaction to becoming more conscious of all the shit still wrong in our society over the last year or so. And/or a reaction to our authoritarian jackass of a president over the past four years.
You can tell the test questions haven't been changed in 15-20 years... probably a good thing as far as keeping consistency in the results, but the choice of some topics and the omission of others becomes more noticeable as time goes on. Though it's also depressing that we're still dealing with the many of the exact same issues that keeps the test still perfectly relevant as is.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
2002 Economic Left/Right: -5.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3
2006 Economic Left/Right: -4.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
2013 Economic Left/Right: -5.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
2015 Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
2021 Economic Left/Right: -6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
So at that progression, you will both hit -10 on the auth/lib scale circa 2040. Just don't forget to come post that result using your direct-brain interface from your self-piloting Tesla Jetson-mobiles. ;-)
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Haven't bothered to take this in years, no idea if I ever posted a previous result.
Economic Left/Right: -7.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)