PDA

View Full Version : Where to Jet Blast politics lie?


TheDesertFerret
12th Dec 2006, 16:20
Are you a pinko or a neo-con?

Wherefore does the political opinion of the average Ppruner lie?

Most folk who communicate via this website are above average intelligence.

So - cards on the table - if the total "screw the rich/west" pinko score is 0 and the extreme "nuke-em - I - hate tax - send them all back, hanging's too good for them" neo-con is 10 - what it your score? It would help to know where everybody stands.

Starter for ten - I'll rank myself 4 - and I think the average Ppruner is 7.5, i.e. comfortably right of centre.

MadsDad
12th Dec 2006, 16:22
About 3.5.

I think (which says it all really).

Grainger
12th Dec 2006, 16:31
Wherefore does the political opinion of the average Ppruner lie?You could start by going to Google and typing "Define: wherefore".

Loki
12th Dec 2006, 16:36
Probably around 4....varies according to phase of the moon.

Ozzy
12th Dec 2006, 16:38
nuke em:E:E

Ozzy

TheDesertFerret
12th Dec 2006, 16:41
Define "wherefore"! Oh bloody 'eck. Come on my friend - its never easy but my suggested indices (expressed with tongue in cheek) is my vehicle of opinion capture. C'mon, are you a 2 or an 8? I bet you're a 7.

BenThere
12th Dec 2006, 17:09
It depends on the issue.

More often a 10 than a 1, but I won't label myself, preserving my right not to be told what to think or say, desires of mods notwithstanding.

TheDesertFerret
12th Dec 2006, 17:15
You're not being told to think anything sir. You're merely being asked to express an honest opinion of yourself. Does that intimidate you?

Two's in
12th Dec 2006, 17:23
Just to add some moral support to Ben There, I advised my eldest daughter before she went off to College in the US that all those "Bush" and "Kerry" bumper stickers were really a good thing. It meant that all the troglodytes who like to go around and scratch car paintwork, or pour noxious substances on them because the owner held a view contrary to their own, no longer had to work out which cars to target, indeed, all the hard work had been done for them.
The lecture accompanying this point of note, was that sometimes (and more often than not) it is better to wear your politics discretely until you have fully assessed your environment. The supplementary point was that to have a "Bush" or "Kerry" sticker, was to allow a group of people to pigeon-hole you in to a political datum point that you probably would not choose to be at. Admittedly come election day then going with the masses is the aim of the exercise, but you will learn far more about your fellow traveller's politics if you remain sweet, shy, and mysterious about your own political leanings in the first instance. Obvious exceptions are Members of Parliament or Congress, and Prime Ministers and Presidents, but otherwise keep them guessing and stay out of that pigeon-hole.

TheDesertFerret
12th Dec 2006, 17:31
Hmm. I can understand your logic but I think the rules are different on this website.

Most threads encourage opinion - many thrive on expressing them so. In many ways my request is not really needed as it is so often obvious how left or right some contributors are.

Now I ask them to simply lay down their place relative to centre of politics then they're all getting coy and running for cover. What's to be scared of?

Speak your mind folks.

AirNoServicesAustralia
12th Dec 2006, 17:31
To be honest I couldn't give a rats backside about this thread, I just saw desert ferret posting here and was wondering why it was that he makes incorrect claims about the UK GDP per capita being higher than Australia's and never has the decency to admit he was wrong when he's corrected.

Sorry for the thread creep, back to your political ramblings.:ok:

TheDesertFerret
12th Dec 2006, 17:34
AirNoServicesAustralia

I was wrong and apologise unreservedly. I'm a newcomer here and I misjudged the balance between fact and frivolity.

Thread creep justified - apology extended - your opinion welcome.

df

AirNoServicesAustralia
12th Dec 2006, 17:41
Apology accepted, and yes their is a lot of frivolity on Jet Blast, but also a fair amount of heated debate, and in the case of the leaving UK thread some guys were really considering leaving and really wanted to know how the UK compares to other places, and so they wanted the facts. Anyway enjoy your discussion.

And for the record I would place myself on the pinkish side of centre when it comes to politics. I believe that while businesses need to be looked after enough to be successful and hence provide adequate employment for the people they should also be adequately taxed to support a comprehensive free health care and education system (a bit like we used to have in Australia before John Howard and his fellow conservative Liberal party cronies screwed things up). Cheers.

TheDesertFerret
12th Dec 2006, 17:51
AirNoServicesAustralia

Having rightly apologised (I was out of order). I had no idea in the midst of a playful thread anyone would take such offence. However - UK GDP per capita per head IS higher than Australia (though not by a country mile I agree) source: OECD.

Capt. Queeg
12th Dec 2006, 18:02
You could start by going to Google and typing "Define: wherefore".

Maybe he's making a clever word-contraction of, "Therefore, where....." :D

BenThere
12th Dec 2006, 18:54
Actually, TheDesertFerret, my views have moved all along the continuum over the years, and I don't wish to declare a point where they are now, only to be abashed down the road when some Ppruner dredges up this post and points out a future hypocrisy on my part.

I'm thinking now of KAOS, who has been surprising me lately by taking refreshingly logical positions, (meaning agreeing with me), unlike many of his posts over the years.

I've consistently objected to labels on Ppune over the years. I don't want to reflexively take a position on any issue. For example, this frees me to like or dislike what Bush does, rather than be forced by my declared politics to go along with his administration based on my label.

I don't feel intimidated, but thanks for your concern.

TheDesertFerret
12th Dec 2006, 19:03
No worries BenThere.

I respect you're non-opinion but of course the yahoos willl read between the lines - which probably means you'll score 8-10.

judge.oversteer
12th Dec 2006, 19:55
Being a judge, I'd say 12.
UK GDP per/head: $42.5
Aust. GDP p/h: $35.9
Dec06.

West Coast
12th Dec 2006, 20:01
"I'm thinking now of KAOS, who has been surprising me lately by taking refreshingly logical positions, (meaning agreeing with me), unlike many of his posts over the years"

Funny, we just agreed on something as well. Perhaps we are the center and he is gravitating towards us?

I think its just the wine. A good California zin likely.

TheDesertFerret
12th Dec 2006, 20:01
Oh **** - I got into trouble with the GDP per head on another thread and had to apologise.

I want big mouthed people who populate JetBlast to be honest. C'mon - stop being mealy mouthed smart arses and tell us where you really stand.

If you're a right-wing gobbo who hates any tax and f*** everybody else then express yourself and speak the truth.

(PS, my tongue is in cheek)

judge.oversteer
12th Dec 2006, 20:19
Oh **** - I got into trouble with the GDP per head on another thread and had to apologise.

I want big mouthed people who populate JetBlast to be honest. C'mon - stop being mealy mouthed smart arses and tell us where you really stand.

If you're a right-wing gobbo who hates any tax and f*** everybody else then express yourself and speak the truth.

(PS, my tongue is in cheek)
Don't apologise. So's mine.
It's only a minor blip.
They're focused on cricket at the moment.
Heard the one about the bootlaces?
JO

Jerricho
12th Dec 2006, 20:42
Where do my politics lie?

I hate everyone equally :E :E :E

West Coast
12th Dec 2006, 22:40
So I guess asking for direct is out of the question in your sector?

Then again, gets me out of your space sooner.....

Howard Hughes
12th Dec 2006, 23:16
Definately not Pink, but then again I wouldn't rate myself a neo con either.
How about a conservative leaning greenie?:ok:

Unwell_Raptor
12th Dec 2006, 23:41
I have voted for all three main parties and the Greens (once) but in general I steer on the left of the centreline socially and the right economically. In JB terms that puts me in the huggy-fluff pinko bracket.

I never dreamed, as I read English and lots of history at university, that I would ever live to hear the word liberal used as an insult. Well, I'm proud of it.

And another thing - the internet is anonymous, and much of the redneck crap we read here is macho posturing that the author would never express in decent society.

Blacksheep
13th Dec 2006, 00:31
Since the untimely death of Lord Sutch, I no longer have any formal political affiliations, so I suppose BS is an anarchist at heart.

Therefore, I refuse to submit a score.





If you must, vote Monster Raving Looney. You know it makes sense.

Buster Hyman
13th Dec 2006, 00:55
I'M A GODDAMN 38 YOU PINKO NAZI WHORE FASCIST!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:







;)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
13th Dec 2006, 03:18
Where do my politics lie?

I only hate Jerricho :E :E :E

eastern wiseguy
13th Dec 2006, 03:27
I'M A GODDAMN 38 YOU PINKO NAZI WHORE FASCIST!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:







;)


Stop sitting on the bloody fence!

Oceanz
13th Dec 2006, 05:09
Well, I do have a nicely framed certificate from South Africa from 1978 telling me that I am a "prohibited person" under their (then) terrorism act, so i guess thatw ould place me at the lower end of the scale ...
though with the odd spike to the upper side on certain issues.

bigfatsweatysock
13th Dec 2006, 11:24
Depends on your point of view.

In Europe I am pretty much a centerist, but in America I would be wearing an orange boiler suit and heading for Cuba.

Capt.KAOS
13th Dec 2006, 12:32
Ubi dubium ibi libertas.

Actually, TheDesertFerret, my views have moved all along the continuum over the years, and I don't wish to declare a point where they are now, only to be abashed down the road when some Ppruner dredges up this post and points out a future hypocrisy on my part.

I'm thinking now of KAOS, who has been surprising me lately by taking refreshingly logical positions, (meaning agreeing with me), unlike many of his posts over the years.

I've consistently objected to labels on Ppune over the years. I don't want to reflexively take a position on any issue. For example, this frees me to like or dislike what Bush does, rather than be forced by my declared politics to go along with his administration based on my label.

I don't feel intimidated, but thanks for your concern.Maybe to your disappointment, BT and WC, but I haven't changed any of my former opinions because reality shows I don't have to. The fact that we agree on certain things is merely coincidence, not logic.

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too." (Voltaire)

West Coast
13th Dec 2006, 15:35
"The fact that we agree on certain things is merely coincidence, not logic"


Ah hell....

I thought we had a moment, a genuine, heterosexual bonding of our souls, completing one another, ready to go forth and pursue our common conservative agenda.

Wedge
13th Dec 2006, 15:48
Wherefore does the political opinion of the average Ppruner lie?

There's no such thing as an 'average' pruner ;)

But this (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) is quite a good stab at a 'test your own politics' machine:

Davaar
13th Dec 2006, 16:13
This will surprise you: Exactly on the centre line between authoritarian and libertarian, one point to the right of centre between left and right.

under_exposed
13th Dec 2006, 16:22
I am a 5. Thatcher was a 2 and Ghengis Kahn was a 4.

Doors to Automatic
13th Dec 2006, 16:23
This will surprise you: Exactly on the centre line between authoritarian and libertarian, one point to the right of centre between left and right.

2 points to the left for me! Surely not!!

Grainger
13th Dec 2006, 16:42
Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama. Interesting company.

Hey, I'd rather hang out with those guys than Blair and cronies.

Trouble is a lot of those questions are poorly formed:

"It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals", for example.

Well, obviously only one case (Hyndley, Huntley, Fred West ?) makes the statement true. I may well feel that rehabilitation is a good thing in most cases, but only a fool would think that all offenders could be rehabilitated (Hussein ? Bin Laden ??).

So agreeing with the statement doesn't give a meaningful measure of the respondent's actual opinion on the issue. A lot of the questions are flawed in this way.

woolyalan
13th Dec 2006, 16:42
Hmmm... id say 7, possibly 8... ill go with 7.5 :)

Davaar
13th Dec 2006, 16:42
We must just accept it, Doors, with fortitude: we are both close to perfect.

Krystal n chips
13th Dec 2006, 18:12
[QUOTE=TheDesertFerret;3015969]

Most folk who communicate via this website are above average intelligence.

QUOTE]

In my case, there is an exclusion clause which allows me to be here by default--so to speak---and represent the other end of the Bell curve .:uhoh: ------that said, my moderate and liberal political views would score a perfect 10 anyway-----and I can see nothing wrong wih the ritual public execution of any of those right wing :mad: in the first place !!!!. :)

lexxity
13th Dec 2006, 18:35
Just over 2 points to the left and just over three points to libertarian.

Like Grainger says some of the questions are badly layed out, but I suppose it's just about me.

tilewood
13th Dec 2006, 19:19
Attilla the Hun is such a pinko! 'Nuff said!! ;)

TheDesertFerret
14th Dec 2006, 23:15
Are neo-cons harder than pinkos?

I still fancy Dolph Lundgren would kick seven bells out of Sylvester Stallone in a fair square-go away from the cameras.

Warbo
27th Dec 2006, 10:59
I suppose the entire population would represent a bell curve with the middle being right on 5. Why would the pprune population be any different I wonder? (even though my instincts tell me you are probably on the money)

Anyway, I am probably about 6.5

nosefirsteverytime
27th Dec 2006, 11:11
I'd like to know what you call someone who beleives that every single human should be allowed do whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't interfere with other people doing whatever they want?

PanPanYourself
27th Dec 2006, 11:43
- I am as anti-Bush as humanly possible
- I am anti-corruption, stupidity, and greed (i.e. I really do hate Bush, a lot)
- I am anti-facisim (therefore I hate neo-cons)
- I am agnostic (anti-organised religion)
- I don't like politicians invoking the name of God
- I am pro-choice
- I am pro-stem cell research
- I am anti-destruction of the environment
- I am pro-raising taxes in the states to try and remmedy that huge budget deficit (caused by Bush)


I guess that makes me a pinkie-commie-yellowbelly-leftie-huffypuffy-liberal-whingebag-pussywussy-terroristlover-babykiller-satan worshipper, or a 1 on your scale.

brickhistory
27th Dec 2006, 12:21
- I am pro-raising taxes in the states to try and remmedy that huge budget deficit (caused by Bush)

Easy position to take since you won't have to pay those taxes.
I'm all for reducing the US government's budget deficit as well.
Perhaps we can start with the more than $35 billion in foreign aid we spent this year. Wonder how much of that went to Turkey?

Binoculars
27th Dec 2006, 12:27
I'd like to know what you call someone who beleives that every single human should be allowed do whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't interfere with other people doing whatever they want?

I would possibly call him young and innocent, and ask him how his milk and cookies with Santa Claus went.

BenThere
27th Dec 2006, 12:35
- I am pro-raising taxes in the states to try and remmedy that huge budget deficit (caused by Bush)

On top of that, the fact that government revenue increased as a result of Bush's tax cuts, making PanPan's suggestion counter to his stated intent.

brickhistory
27th Dec 2006, 12:38
On top of that, the fact that government revenue increased as a result of Bush's tax cuts, making PanPan's suggestion counter to his stated intent.

One cannot let facts get in the way of a good rant! Bush is the evil, the devil, the root cause of all of humanity's ills.

Wonder why all those ills have been occuring even before he was in office?

Binoculars
27th Dec 2006, 12:41
BenThere, I'd expect that sort of knee-jerk response from West Coast but not from you. Do you expect anybody to believe the "trickle down effect" from Bush's attempt at out-Reaganing Ronnie would counter balance the two trillion (and counting) dollars so far pissed up against the wall of Iraq?

Oh, sorry, I forgot. It's chump change.

tony draper
27th Dec 2006, 12:49
Where do my politics lie? hmmm, well let me put it this way,within a week of siezing power I would have myself declared a God,and them as dies will be the lucky one's.
:E
One would of course make SWH a consul as well.

BenThere
27th Dec 2006, 12:57
You're talking about spending, my friend. My point was that in general, if taxes are raised, less money would flow to the government.
Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations each had this phenomenon demonstrated.
There is an optimum level of taxation rates above which revenues decrease as tax rates are raised. That is the essence of Laffer's curve which remains unrefuted.
Therefore, PanPan's helpful suggestion would result in the opposite of providing funds to pay down federal debt, that is the debt would increase assuming spending were held unchanged. I'm here to help those on the left who either can't or refuse to understand this basic economic principle.

$2 trillion is a lot of money, especially to an Aussie, but a lot more has been spent to destroy our cities with failed Great Society programs, making folks dependent on the government rather than on themselves.

Binoculars
27th Dec 2006, 13:22
Well thank you for that, BenThere. In fact I had to write down the numbers divided into groups of three to appreciate the colossal sum involved in trillions. It's true that our very small economy rarely rates mention of trillions of anything, and perhaps you are politely suggesting that what is a huge amount in our small economy really is chump change to yours. I would suggest the current levels of US debt cast some doubt on that proposition.

I'm not sure how you feel about your country's economy, but I know that as an upcoming retiree who is acutely conscious of the American effect on world wide economies, I have very serious doubts about its ability to ride a continuing wave of debt.

Of course the devotees of Reaganomics and Thatcherism simply LOVE Laffer's curve; why wouldn't they? It's rather like quoting Friedman as a guru and running down Galbraith as a naive fool. Statistics, as we all know, can be made to prove anything. While I know we occupy rather different positions on the spectrum, I would be happy to argue anytime and at great length, preferably over a quite ale or two, about whether you believe the "economic miracle" the proponents of Laffer's curve love to claim as their own has resulted in anything more than an appalling redistribution of wealth in your country. Some may see that as natural selection. That's fine, as long as those people don't then complain bitterly about the social results.

PanPanYourself
27th Dec 2006, 13:34
Perhaps we can start with the more than $35 billion in foreign aid we spent this year. Wonder how much of that went to Turkey?
Oh no, oh mighty American, why hast thou foresaken me? America is great America is great, long live the empire!

Just kidding, you can take your few measily pennies in "aid" and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. Oh, and forget about using our air bases for your illegal wars. While you're at it, forget about all those favors we did for you during the cold war, you won't be getting any of that again any time soon.

Yes, Bush is the devil, and I will rant to that effect as much as I please.


P.s. If the USA taxed gasoline properly, like almost every other developed country, how exactly would that reduce federal income? How exactly does giving tax breaks to the rich and ripping off the poor increase revenue?

brickhistory
27th Dec 2006, 14:02
P.s. If the USA taxed gasoline properly, like almost every other developed country, how exactly would that reduce federal income? How exactly does giving tax breaks to the rich and ripping off the poor increase revenue?


If the US taxed gas at the rates of Western Europe, for example, there couldn't be a more stark example of ripping off the poor. The rich which you so rail against (but I bet you'd love to be one of them) can easily absorb whatever high tax was placed on fuel whereas the guy barely getting by and trying to feed his family would be hard pressed to handle another $2-3 or more in taxes per gallon.

Keef
27th Dec 2006, 14:14
True. I live in the country where "gasoline" is around $1.80 a litre (about $6.50 a US gallon). The poor don't drive around all that much, except in rural parts where they have no choice. They certainly don't drive vast 4WD gas guzzlers. My car is big enough to carry 4 people plus baggage, and returns 45 miles per (UK) gallon.

Increasing US fuel duty would hurt the oil companies (reduced sales) and the US car manufacturers (fewer sales of large, expensive gas-guzzling SUVs) - which is why the politicians dare not do it. The small cars in the USA are largely from the Far East, albeit some now made locally.

ORAC
27th Dec 2006, 16:34
I'd like to know what you call someone who beleives that every single human should be allowed do whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't interfere with other people doing whatever they want? American Individualist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism)"
Josiah Warren, who is the first individualist anarchist in the American tradition, had participated in a failed collectivist experiment headed by Robert Owen called "New Harmony" and came to the conclusion that such a system is inferior to one that respects the "sovereignty [19] of the individual" and his right to dispose of his property as his own self-interest prescribes. In Practical Details, where he discusses his conclusions in regard to the experiment. In a much cited quotation from that text, he makes a vehement assertion of individual negative liberty: "Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL inviolate. That it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS."

pigboat
27th Dec 2006, 19:49
I still fancy Dolph Lundgren would kick seven bells out of Sylvester Stallone in a fair square-go away from the cameras.

One roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris and both would be kibbles 'n bits. :ok:

Oh, just to the right of Ghengis Khan.

PanPanYourself
27th Dec 2006, 20:16
The rich which you so rail against (but I bet you'd love to be one of them)
What makes you think I'm not? :O

BenThere
27th Dec 2006, 20:38
If the USA taxed gasoline properly

Of course to you, PanPan, properly taxed is at a 500% rate, you being a '1' on our little scale and all. That's why your fuel prices make sense to you.

But I can't go along with that, given my view that when government approaches 50 percent of the production of the people it become the master, rather than the servant of us pesky people.

I'm often pensive about the factor relatively lower fuel costs play in the performance of the American economy versus the Western European macroeconomy. Clearly, we are not as smart and sophisticated, but somehow lucked into a low tax policy for fuel that may make commerce (the moving around of things) more feasible at lower costs. And money not given to the treasury in the form of petrol tax instead goes into the economy to make the jobs and bombs we need.

As I was already in a thoughtful mood, and was jogged by Keef's reference to our ailing SUV-obsessed auto industry, I came up with the idea of promoting increased French immigration, enticing them with the prospect of moving to a stable country with manageable social problems. The idea being they could bring their proclivity for torching hundreds of vehicles every day to stimulate demand for new American cars. Being a Detroiter, I'm sensitive to and supportive of solutions that involve building and selling more cars, and I think the French have alit (right term?) on a program with a good bit of potential in this regard.

Do you think our cheaper fuel would contribute to greater torching productivity?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
27th Dec 2006, 20:55
the moving around of thingsperhaps, but the vast majority of thing you (we) move around are made in china :(


Likewise spending: The money is NOT "flowing to the government". Unless my local Target is an anachronism, it's all going to the slitty eyed part owners of the country :suspect:

Two's in
27th Dec 2006, 21:23
Interesting theory BenThere, but I fear any financial impetus to the Auto Industry by mass French Immigration would be more than offset by the slump in sales of deodorant. Although if we started building car engines where you measure the gap between the cylinder and the piston with a feeler guage instead of a soup spoon, we might get further in the fuel economy stakes. 5 litre engines from Detroit that have all the torque of a bad Italian hair dryer, but make the Shuttle lift-off seem muted just leave me baffled. Those charming Japanese gentlemen seem to have got over the whole penis envy, engine size thing quite well, unlike GM.