What's your political orientation?

[Funk, E]

I think they mean whatever nationality you happen to be. The specifics of the question don't really matter, it's just asking you about a predilection against cultural relativism.

[jfrost]

I have to agree with jfrost on some of these questions. I would have preferred an "unsure/don't care" or some kind of middle road option on some of these questions. Like this one:

That would be unecessary if the questions were a hair clearer. I do like that it doesn't give you the option of middle ground. I think uncomfortable or unclear decisions are often necessary, but people like to find an easy way out.

The problem is that in questions like the one Ack quoted, even if you're supposed to give a definite answer, it still is ambiguous.

I still think they assume too much in the quiz. I mean, I understand they're trying to force people to take a stand on several issues, but if the questions are not a constituent part of my political views, the results will be less, not more, accurate.

[RadarScope1]

I'm generally to the left of the spectrum, with a growing libertarian streak when it comes to the budget and monetary policy. I like much of what Obama has done so far in terms of foreign policy (that Cairo speech was exactly the kind of change I voted for) and with the tone of civility he's maintained while debating domestic issues. I am in favor of some new programs but we HAVE to make choices. The spending scares me -- it will come back on us. This problem goes back several years, though and is truly not a left or right issue. Bush and the GOP and Dem congress ran up the deficit because of earmarks and because they cannot make choices. I like Obama's recent suggestion of "pay as you go" rules because it would force the people with the pursestrings (congress) into making choices. I'm willing to give it some time. You cannot turn a huge ship like this around in a matter of months, and people getting up in arms because things haven't been "fixed" yet are naive or just partisan or both.

But on social issues I'm very progressive. Choice, gay marriage, equal pay, immigration, etc.

Ack - Not sure what level of government you are about to join, but I work in municipal government and I work with quite a few conservative folks who believe in limited government. I wouldn't assume everyone in govt is on the left. What are you going into?

I believe that the government just doesn't do anything very well.

I certainly want to keep it civil, but I have to say I have a problem with this. This statement assumes everyone who works for the government is a knuckle-dragger and that we would be better off to outsource everything, including oversight and regulation, to the private sector. More often than not when govt fails it is not because it "can't do anything right" but because it is doing things in areas it shouldn't be in in the first place. I'm not just saying this because I'm I have a govt job. There's a place for both the public and private sector, and I think a statement like this is just as naive as saying we should trust the govt to run everything, just from the other extreme.

[Ack]

Ack - Not sure what level of government you are about to join, but I work in municipal government and I work with quite a few conservative folks who believe in limited government. I wouldn't assume everyone in govt is on the left. What are you going into?

Honestly, anything that pays right now. I don't know if I can afford to be picky what with the economy and everything, and a generally low level of experience since I'll be just out of school. There's a lot of Air Force bases hiring librarians right now, so I might end up doing civilian work for the military.

And personally, I really haven't agreed with much president Obama has done since coming into office. I want as little government involvement in the economy, and that also includes areas like health care to me. As for foreign policy, I realize he's trying to be more diplomatic with our enemies and I can understand his desire to handle things that way, but I feel that some of his actions have made the United States look weak. It's also led to the alienation of a few of our allies, including the UK and Israel. I've mentioned it a few times on this forum as well, but I'm worried of the potential for trade limits with Japan due to the government involvement of the auto industry, thus alienating another ally we need.

[RadarScope1]

Eh, I'm not too worried about the appearance of weakness. (Though I'm sure you can probably tell I disagree anyway.) I'm pretty sure everyone knows our standing in the world. Everyone knows we are at the top of the food chain. My problem comes when people (lately Sens. McCain and Graham) saying that we should go around telling everyone what to do. I believe that alienates far more than it helps. I am not worried about the UK and Israel. We have far more in common than we have to disagree over, and that will be true for a very long time.

While I think we can all agree that we pretty much run the show, I don't think we have to ACT like it all the time. There's a difference between knowing you're the shit and then leading by example and acting like you're the shit and rubbing in everyone's face. I agree with Ron Paul's sentiment when he was the only vote against the House resolution supporting the Iranian people last week (though I would have voted for that bill, I'm sure). He pointed out that sham elections happen all the time. Why are we not condemning Saudia Arabia, Russia, Egypt, Venezuela, etc. every other time this happens? It's because we can't go around acting holier than thou.

[Ack]

Eh, I'm not too worried about the appearance of weakness. (Though I'm sure you can probably tell I disagree anyway.) I'm pretty sure everyone knows our standing in the world. Everyone knows we are at the top of the food chain. My problem comes when people (lately Sens. McCain and Graham) saying that we should go around telling everyone what to do. I believe that alienates far more than it helps. I am not worried about the UK and Israel. We have far more in common than we have to disagree over, and that will be true for a very long time.

While I think we can all agree that we pretty much run the show, I don't think we have to ACT like it all the time. There's a difference between knowing you're the shit and then leading by example and acting like you're the shit and rubbing in everyone's face. I agree with Ron Paul's sentiment when he was the only vote against the House resolution supporting the Iranian people last week (though I would have voted for that bill, I'm sure). He pointed out that sham elections happen all the time. Why are we not condemning Saudia Arabia, Russia, Egypt, Venezuela, etc. every other time this happens? It's because we can't go around acting holier than thou.

A couple of things here. First off, I remember with Obama's election the claim being thrown about that "America was no longer a superpower," along with the expected claims that this would end our "American imperialism." These statements alone can embolden enemy nations, and is further compounded by tests of power by many of them. For instance, North Korea immediately testfires more missiles, and threatens to hit us with one on July 4. Russia appears to build up for another attack on Georgia. Meanwhile, Taliban forces in Pakistan, having negotiated a ceasefire with the government, immediately launches an offensive and takes control of Swat valley. In the meantime, we drop missile defense programs, begin requiring our soldiers to read enemy prisoner's their Miranda Rights, and now aren't even being allowed to engage enemy forces who are in populated areas, due to the chance of hitting civilian targets when the people we're fighting happened to be considered "civilians."

As for our allies, perhaps insulting the Queen by not inviting her to D-Day festivities isn't so bad, and the whole gift shenanigans with their PM won't really be remembered, but the release of Chinese Uighurs on soil that is under the protection of the British without telling them that we were releasing known terrorists on said soil? That will likely put a kink in our relationship with them, especially as far as our intelligence services go.

Then there's our cooling relationship with Germany.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/2009 ... tic-Agenda

And our cooling relationship with France.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 434141.ece

And that brings us to Israel, one of the few allies we have in the Middle East, a country beset on three out of four sides by enemies, a sea on the remaining side, and an enemy that exists in special zones inside itself. President Obama's speech insult Israel in two ways: first, their legitimacy, and two, by placing their problems with Palestinians solely as the fault of the Israelis. Israel claims legitimacy as a nation because it existed in that spot several thousand years ago, as opposed to simply being created as a land to stick the Jews so they wouldn't be in Europe after World War II. And second, yes, Israeli encroachment on Palestinian territory as their population grows naturally is going to have to stop, but there's a second party here that has something else it has to stop for the two-state system to work: Palestine must stop its incitement to violence against the Israelis. Hamas runs children's shows on television where characters in costumes tell kids about the evil of the Jews. Hatred of Israel and the Jews is taught in school. For these two groups to successfully coexist, this behavior has to stop. Yet this has never been mentioned by President Obama, in his Cairo speech or otherwise. In fact, he has continuously called out only the Israelis. Their general opinion of him is that he's a schmuck and an empty suit, a celebrity president.

And because they feel this way, they're less likely to pass along vital intelligence, or military support. Economic deals, backing of US interests in the UN, support for NATO, all of these will suffer because our friends turn away from us. That is why I worry so much about the alienation of allies. Will we be ok in the long run? I certainly hope so. But I can't predict the future.

As for Iran, truthfully we're actually late to the party on that one. Australia and the UK had opened their embassies to protect the wounded from Iranian police and military by Saturday evening. Germany and France condemned the violence several days before we did. Sure, it's one thing to have a faux election. Hell, we get them here. But it's quite another when mass protests and riots against the election occur, and the government's response is to begin beating down whoever they can find, or randomly firing weapons into crowds of protesters. The government even went so far as to cut phone and Internet services throughout the country and ban foreign journalists from leaving their apartments so word of what was going on wouldn't get out to the world.

We're supposed to be a hallmark of freedom, shouldn't we say something when another country's protests end in bloodshed? Shouldn't we at least attempt to stand up for the little guy, the one who is getting beaten down in the streets? Or is it so important to have nice relations with the current regime that we won't condemn the violence it's causing to its own people? What will happen if the protesters win? And even if they don't, those protesting in the streets today will be the ones in power in...20, 30 years? Will they still remember our reaction? Will they remember that, instead of taking an interest in them and considering aiding, or at least supporting their efforts, we invited their enemy over for barbecue?

At this point it's getting more and more obvious that the Ayatollah isn't going to get out of this completely unscathed. We'll have to see how the working strikes go over the next few days, as well as how the protesters react to the Guardian Council's findings.

[Gamerforlife]

To answer the original topic question, I generally don't care about politics too much, but when political discussion does come up I usually lean towards the Democratic party and was behind Obama last election. However, I sometimes wonder if it really matters who is in charge. Comedian Bill Hicks had some interesting comments about politics that I've found funny and thought provoking. Though I'm sure many people would say he was crazy and a conspiracy nut

In general though, I don't really follow politics or even give it much thought. I'm thirty years old and life has been swell for me regardless of who was in charge so I really don't care all that much

[HeavyMetalMe]

I may as well be honest and not claim to be a Nazi punk.

I really don't like labeling myself, but I'm going with a bit further to the right Libertarian, nearing conservative. While I consider myself pro-choice, I'm very opposed to Roe vs. Wade. I actually believe abortion should be somewhat privatized, meaning groups such as Planned Parenthood would no longer receive government funding.

If Life Dynamics can live off of private funding, so should Planned Parenthood. I don't believe someone who is morally opposed to abortion should have to pay for them.

To be 100% honest, I think schools should start teaching eugenics in schools as well. NOT Aryan eugenics, but simply the idea that if you're retarded, you shouldn't feel inclined to have kids. And just so I don't get too much hate for that statement, I don't believe it should be enforced, just taught.

[Limewater]

I believe that the government just doesn't do anything very well.

I certainly want to keep it civil, but I have to say I have a problem with this. This statement assumes everyone who works for the government is a knuckle-dragger and that we would be better off to outsource everything, including oversight and regulation, to the private sector.

Well, I do believe we would be better off with most things handled by the private sector, but I in no way, shape, or form believe that all government employees are knuckle-dragging idiots.

I mean, look at the Hurricane Katrina response. There is no doubt in my mind that the people working to help those affected by the storms were sincere, hard-working, and motivated. I am certain that the members of the National Guard, etc, were really wanting to help those people. Yet, how did that go?

I'm a former federal employee myself. I've known sharp, dedicated, hard-working government employees and I've known ones who never did a darn thing since they pretty much couldn't be fired. Additionally, I know exactly what it's like to have the knowledge, skill, and will to do something you need to do to get your job done, but not be able to do it due to some bureaucratic nonsense. If I were to say that all government employees are knuckle-draggers, I'd have to put myself in that group.

Additionally, when the government does something, they usually don't have a whole lot of motivation for doing it well because they are often the only game in town.

[Octopod]

I was in the Super Dome for 5 or 6 days during and after hurricane Katrina and the national guard were anything but helpfull. Ofcourse Id rather have them there than Blackwater...