# Your Political Views - a test



## Makalakumu (Mar 8, 2004)

Hi Guys;

I was just wondering how you guys would rate if you took this political test.  It is very interesting and I think that it will lead to some very interesting discussion.  Please take the test and answer the questions seriously.  Post your scores and write what you think?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

My scores were...

On the economic axis Left vs Right -4.38 (pretty far left)
On the social axis Libertarian vs Authoritarian -7.23 (very libertarian)

I am pretty much a socially conscious anarchist.  

There are very few candidates that match my beliefs.  Jesse Ventura was rather close.  So is Dennis Kucinich.  What I think is interesting is the fact that most world leaders and just about all of our political candidates are very right of center and very authoritarian.  In my opinion this is a slap in the face of freedom.

There is a dissonence between what people believe and who they vote for and I think this reflects a defect in our political system.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 8, 2004)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00

Hmmm... I am not supprised that I am that close to the middle of the road.  

Ive always said that neither side can be trusted... hehe


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 8, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Hi Guys;
> 
> I was just wondering how you guys would rate if you took this political test.  It is very interesting and I think that it will lead to some very interesting discussion.  Please take the test and answer the questions seriously.  Post your scores and write what you think?
> 
> ...


I'm just to the right of Ghandi. I kept wanting to qualify my answers.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 8, 2004)

Surprise Surprise -- NOT!


- 5.50 * Left/Right
- 5.95 * Libertarian/Authoritarian

What was nice, is that my graph lined up kinda in the same place as the Dali Lama and Ghandi. Nice company to keep, I think.

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Mar 8, 2004)

I started taking that test but IMHO, most of the questions seemed to be of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" flavor.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 8, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I started taking that test but IMHO, most of the questions seemed to be of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" flavor.



I would recommend retaking the test.  There is a lot of research behind the design.  Check out the reading list.  Questions that seem loaded to you in one way, are questions you would answer as "strongly agree".  Other people would honestly answer those questions differently.  WOW, we all don't share the same opinion!!!!!  A good example is the difference between what Michael Moore and Ayn Rand would think.  Imagine those two with the gloves off...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Mar 8, 2004)

"The idea was developed by a political journalist with a university counselling background, assisted by a professor of social history. They're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, a new generation in particular will get a better idea of where they stand politically - and the sort of political company they keep. "

Not intending to be a pessimist, but what side do you think these guys fall out on? If they think that their own political leanings had NO role in the development of this test, I think they are fooling themselves.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 8, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> ...We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, a new generation in particular will get a better idea of where they stand politically - and the sort of political company they keep.
> 
> Not intending to be a pessimist, but what side do you think these guys fall out on? If they think that their own political leanings had NO role in the development of this test, I think they are fooling themselves.


 Certainly, these questions revolve around a 'soft science'. And certainly, they do bring their own opinions to the table. But what does not mean there is no validity to the quiz.
 Seems to me that they are measure fuzzy subjects with specific questions. No doubt, 60 or 70 questions across a web-site, is not going to change anyone's life in a dramatic way. For the 15 minutes you invest, you get a bit of reassurance about your beliefs.

Do you view the questions as a waste of time because they are measure the 'left/right/up/down' thing, or because people such as these professors could not possibly assemble a series of questions that might shine a light in all directions?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Certainly, these questions revolve around a 'soft science'. And certainly, they do bring their own opinions to the table. But what does not mean there is no validity to the quiz.
> Seems to me that they are measure fuzzy subjects with specific questions. No doubt, 60 or 70 questions across a web-site, is not going to change anyone's life in a dramatic way. For the 15 minutes you invest, you get a bit of reassurance about your beliefs.
> 
> Do you view the questions as a waste of time because they are measure the 'left/right/up/down' thing, or because people such as these professors could not possibly assemble a series of questions that might shine a light in all directions?


Im sort of a modified Mark Twain..."theres lies, damn lies and internet political,personality,IQ etc. quizes."


----------



## Ender (Mar 8, 2004)

the questions are too polarizing...the test is bogus.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 9, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> the questions are too polarizing...the test is bogus.


In the 'FAQ' [Frequently Asked Questions] area, the authors respond to this comment. 



*Some of the questions are slanted
* Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and *these aren't questions*. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
 Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy. 

 Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.


----------



## qizmoduis (Mar 9, 2004)

This is my score:

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46


Not terribly surprising, although I'm a little skeptical about being placed in similar territory with Ghandi and the Dalai Lama.  Of course, the test can't determine character traits, activism, and passion about causes, so maybe it isn't that far off.  I may have similar opinions, but I certainly don't have their abilities.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 9, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> the questions are too polarizing...the test is bogus.



The test is not Bogus.  YOU have EXTREME views.  YOU are POLARIZED.  So many people believe they are middle of the road, but end up finding that they are not with this test.  It can be very disappointing.  This is self learning though and sometimes the information you find is information you do not want to hear.  

Take the test and post your results.  Then talk.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 9, 2004)

Economic left / right : -3.88
Social Libertarian / Authoritarian : -2.31

It's good to be comparabley close to Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. 

I know when I take these tests that I am fairly moderate, but I have certain subjects on which I am very polar on, and they are usually very unusual compared to the rest of my leanings. Interesting! I figured I would be a Right wing libertarian. It was especially interesting to see where they placed the Pres. candidates.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 9, 2004)

This is entertaining, but it is no different than the career development day tests that we took in High School:

Your answers most closely match.... Charles Manson!  You have a career in cults!  

If they could reasonably interview all the people who they are placing on this graph, like Ghandi, and then compare answers I might see more validity in it.  The way it runs, it is still subjective people trying to be objective, interpreting other peoples work and placing them on this graph and then comparing your position based on an interview that these other icons weren't part of... skewed.  Entertaining, but skewed.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 9, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> This is entertaining, but it is no different than the career development day tests that we took in High School:
> 
> Your answers most closely match.... Charles Manson!  You have a career in cults!
> 
> If they could reasonably interview all the people who they are placing on this graph, like Ghandi, and then compare answers I might see more validity in it.  The way it runs, it is still subjective people trying to be objective, interpreting other peoples work and placing them on this graph and then comparing your position based on an interview that these other icons weren't part of... skewed.  Entertaining, but skewed.



I don't think that there is any icon worship going on though. Look at the page dealing with icons. It is designed to show that even the people we see as the epitome of one group often behaved opposite of what everyone would expect. Obviously there is some subjectivity to the test, because there is no hard definition of what is Right or Left or Authoritarian or Libertarian and even when we find definition that seems to suit there are many discrepincies.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 9, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I don't think that there is any icon worship going on though. Look at the page dealing with icons. It is designed to show that even the people we see as the epitome of one group often behaved opposite of what everyone would expect. Obviously there is some subjectivity to the test, because there is no hard definition of what is Right or Left or Authoritarian or Libertarian and even when we find definition that seems to suit there are many discrepincies.



But for the sake of their questionare they are defining the terms.  It is good that they don't try and pedistal these "icons" though.


----------



## TonyM. (Mar 9, 2004)

Well I'm in good company smack dab between Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama.


----------



## OUMoose (Mar 9, 2004)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

Also down by Ghandi... Not bad, but I'm by no means a pacifist either...  :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 9, 2004)

Interesting wording 


Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62

Right near Nelson Mendela


----------



## edhead2000 (Mar 9, 2004)

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 9, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Interesting wording
> 
> 
> Economic Left/Right: -3.62
> ...



Rich, you claimed to vote republican rather frequently in another thread.  This test indicates that you are rather liberal.  Why the discrepancy?

Did anyone esle notice a discrepancy?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 9, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Rich, you claimed to vote republican rather frequently in another thread. This test indicates that you are rather liberal. Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Did anyone esle notice a discrepancy?


Looking at the responses, I am a bit curious. UpnorthKyosa and I are both pretty left on the political spectrum, but I am thinking we are out there in 'Wellstone Land'. This survey is placing many people on the left/liberitarian. I think that some of these people should be in the 'mushy-middle'.

Also, I think those who made comments about the biased nature of the survey, might be the ones who would balance out the other side of the bell curve.

I will keep watching the responses. - Mike


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2004)

I think its because the test has a liberal slant in its make-up. I believe theres a goal here to make people believe they are more liberal than they thought. I took it....when I answered the questions with a "well I dont believe this in every case" attitude I came out more liberal. When I took a "this is a liberal trick question" approach I came out conservative.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 9, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think its because the test has a liberal slant in its make-up. I believe theres a goal here to make people believe they are more liberal than they thought. I took it....when I answered the questions with a "well I dont believe this in every case" attitude I came out more liberal. When I took a "this is a liberal trick question" approach I came out conservative.


 
Perhaps .... but what exactly is a 'Liberal Trick Question'?


----------



## Ender (Mar 9, 2004)

the test is bogus. just look at the first question:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

who says it has to be either one of these??..it's as another poster said...the question is a basic "have you stopped beating your wife" type.

Products and services that reach consumers at efficient prices (not leading to waste or harm) would serve BOTH humanity and corporations.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 9, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Rich, you claimed to vote republican rather frequently in another thread. This test indicates that you are rather liberal. Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Did anyone esle notice a discrepancy?


 
Hmmm The discrepency? There is none in my book. Why you might ask?

I vote per person and per what I want to make a point on.  Many times I cannot find the perfect candidate and Compromise.

My Views. I support the U.S. Constitution. I also support Research and Design into technology, as this is how our overall standard of living is raised. Just look at all of the technology that is either directly or first generation indirectly from the space programs. All modern form of Coummincations, the PC and computer ships were designed for space and calculations for the ships and research. Only Microwave Ovens is not directly from the space research, as this was from WWII  and beyond and a direct result of Military research.

Yet, when the Republicans that are now making all the issues around God, and their Religious value or morals. I find it hard to support them. To me this is not the issue, and is not the way to support the U.S. Constitution, in my humble opinion.

Now, when asked about individuals, or the environment, I also support these types of control. I voted for social security versus charity. Why? Charity would not help people and would miss people. I also voted for regulations to control environmental controls of large companies? Why? Because without it they would only go for profit, and not care about people or environment.

So, in my support if research, now most people aho make less than $25,000 a year have a cell phone and also cable and VCR or DVD and ..., and the list goes on. Their standard of living has improved versus, their parents or previous generations. Yet, has this resolved the issue of saving money? No they still spend it all on credit and bankruptcy. What about the increased life expentency due to technology? What do we about retirement?

With the increased regulations and increased write of credit, the companies increase the price of their products to pay their employees and also to make money for the Stock owners. This causes inflation, and is the down side to this. Yet if controlled, the economy grows with trade and the standard of living increases, and people prosper. I find this way easier to fund then to create programs that require funding without long term funding gaurenteed. If it locked in or cannot change then I approve. Once again my opinion.

Yet, in the end, one could point to this and say see the survey is flawed as it did not reflect how I have voted or might vote 

:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2004)

Ender just gave an example of what I would call a "liberal trick question".


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 9, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> the test is bogus. just look at the first question:
> 
> If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
> 
> ...


I see your point, but let me ask you, why is it in the interest of a 'trans-national corporation' to serve humanity?

Now, for the sake of discussion, I am not saying that corporations can not be (and/or are not) good citizens, no doubt some of them are. But according to the capitalist model, the purpose of any corporation is to generate value for its shareholders. It is not in the interest of the corporation to diminsh the shareholder value by properly disposing of PCB's for instance (see General Electric - Hudson River - 1960's). If the company is truly 'Trans-National', wouldn't it be easier just to transport these dangerous by-products of their economic engine to another country, which has less stringent regulations (thus preserving shareholder value).

Also notice that the responses were not a true/false binary, rather a continuum of opinion (although I would have liked to see a greater gradation). So, while the statement is, perhaps, black and white, your opinion can be at least a couple of shades of gray.

The authors of this study stated that some of the questions are asked in the manner they are just to make a point, to instigate you. 

Someone earlier said that perhaps they want to make people think they are more liberal than they really may be. From the responses here, that looks to be a pretty fair statement ... but ... of course, this is a self-selecting survey, isn't it? This means that it is not scientifically sound. To adjudicate the results as scientific, we would need a true random sample, people could not choose to 'opt-out' of the survey. There are of course, several other factors that would need to be considered to be scientific.

So, in that respect, certainly, this survey carries not more weight or validity than let's say the polls on the O'Reilly Factor website.

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 9, 2004)

Unfortunately there are companies that are going south of the USA border and using practices that are outlawed here in the states. They move the jobs south, to have cheaper labor, only they are creating towns around the factories like they did here in the US, yet there is no sanitation, or very little. Now this is not all companies, it is some few that are really after a few Dollars or Yen or ..., .

There has been great improvement because the Mexican government has added more regulations to help the people working and those living in the surrounding area.

So, given that General Electric has a great health standard today that many companies chase for loss recorded work days. Yet, there history and the history of other companies is not clean by today's standards. They were legal or borderline when the events happened.
:asian:


----------



## Ender (Mar 9, 2004)

Well I would say corporations can reflect society as a whole. I think most corporations are good citizens just like most people are good citizens. Sure there are those who break the law just like any other person. After all, they are run by people. The problem I have is people trying paint business as some evil entity. If you have tried to run a business as I have, you know that you have to balance all aspects of the business. You have to meet salaries, provide healthcare, try to retain the best people, produce a quality product, and then make a profit. If you make a profit, you can expand the company and add more jobs. If you cannot make a profit, you have to lay people off, improve processes, and try to become more efficient. You sit down with your spreadsheets, try to make rational decisions on all aspects of your business, knowing that your competitor is doing the same thing, and trying to bury you. And after all that, if you make a 3% profit for the year (like most corporations), you've had a good year. But if people find a 401K's growth of 3% paltry...go figure.

On top of that, it behooves a company to act responsibly. If you look at Texaco a few years ago when they had that major discrimination lawsuit, you will see that they lost millons of dollars because of prejudice. Today it makes no sense to act unethical in the short term or the long term. Bad behavior results in brutal public opinion (ie Enron, Martha Stewart, Global Crossing, etc.), which in turn means loss of revenue or worse.

The other thing people fail to recognize is "Consumer Greed". This is what drives companies to find ways to lower prices. Consumers pit companies against each other by taking their business somewhere else solely on the basis of price. If anyone has bought ANYTHING based on a lower price, they are contibuting to this. Sure people lament the passing of the "mom and pop" shops, but what they don't realize is they had a hand in their demise. Off they go to Walmart to get a good deal on some item when they could have spent their money at a smaller store. And who do they blame? Walmart. They don't realize what has to be done to get them that price.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 9, 2004)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87


This test actually makes me look a lot more middle of the road then I really believe I am. Oh well. I'm all alone as a libertarian anarchist.


-Rob


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 9, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Well I would say corporations can reflect society as a whole. I think most corporations are good citizens just like most people are good citizens. Sure there are those who break the law just like any other person. After all, they are run by people. The problem I have is people trying paint business as some evil entity. If you have tried to run a business as I have, you know that you have to balance all aspects of the business. You have to meet salaries, provide healthcare, try to retain the best people, produce a quality product, and then make a profit. If you make a profit, you can expand the company and add more jobs. If you cannot make a profit, you have to lay people off, improve processes, and try to become more efficient. You sit down with your spreadsheets, try to make rational decisions on all aspects of your business, knowing that your competitor is doing the same thing, and trying to bury you. And after all that, if you make a 3% profit for the year (like most corporations), you've had a good year. But if people find a 401K's growth of 3% paltry...go figure.
> 
> On top of that, it behooves a company to act responsibly. If you look at Texaco a few years ago when they had that major discrimination lawsuit, you will see that they lost millons of dollars because of prejudice. Today it makes no sense to act unethical in the short term or the long term. Bad behavior results in brutal public opinion (ie Enron, Martha Stewart, Global Crossing, etc.), which in turn means loss of revenue or worse.
> 
> The other thing people fail to recognize is "Consumer Greed". This is what drives companies to find ways to lower prices. Consumers pit companies against each other by taking their business somewhere else solely on the basis of price. If anyone has bought ANYTHING based on a lower price, they are contibuting to this. Sure people lament the passing of the "mom and pop" shops, but what they don't realize is they had a hand in their demise. Off they go to Walmart to get a good deal on some item when they could have spent their money at a smaller store. And who do they blame? Walmart. They don't realize what has to be done to get them that price.


Ender,

During college, I was the manager for the owner of a small company. The business did $500,000 plus in slow years. I currently work for a large company, and I help to give the data to the shooters/ decision makers, where we are discussing major programs that cost $140 million to just pay the canclation charges. We ahve to deal with union contracts and what will happen to the jobs, also deal with Governmental negotiations here inteh US and also in other countries for jobs and or sales, etc., ..., .

I also have adopted parents that run a real small restaurant that pays their bills. I have helped them out through my life as cheap labor.

I understand small, medium and large companies.

Companies want to make profit. If the product sucks people will go elsewhere, yet if I can do it dump the by product into a river because there is no law against it, people will do it today, and then deal with the issues tomorrow.

Companies are not evil. Yet, when they close up a plant that has been there for years / decades, they are the bad guy. It does not matter that the footings are from 1898 or 1908 and it cost the most of all plants to heat or cool, and it also has issues with water and air quality for its' employees. Yet, those employees are upset because they now need to move to keep their job, or loose it.  Just look at the movie "Roger and Me" to get a feel of how people look at the evil corporations. They make cold hard decisions to make a profit or to stay a float and people sometimes get hurt. To have people down in two states and also another country, to resolve some technical issues, is nto cost effective.

Yet, companies would not have spent the money on Fuel Injection and Control Modules without regulation to control emissions. These emission controls just so happened to get a good by product of better fuel economy. Especially, when the evil corps had the 50 MPG carbeurators  .

So, some regulations have not improved the enviroment, they also have improved the product, yet the cost has gone way up. Now the cost is also due to safety issues, and products in the vehicles, also driving by regulations,  as well as creator comforts .

Yet, if not intervention had taken place, the improvements we have today woudl not be there. 

Just my opinion and experience.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 9, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> ... On top of that, it behooves a company to act responsibly. If you look at Texaco a few years ago when they had that major discrimination lawsuit, you will see that they lost millons of dollars because of prejudice. Today it makes no sense to act unethical in the short term or the long term. Bad behavior results in brutal public opinion (ie Enron, Martha Stewart, Global Crossing, etc.), which in turn means loss of revenue or worse.


The statement that "it behooves a company to act responsibly" is interesting. A discrimination lawsuit, which cost a company millions of dollars because of prejudice could only come about in a society where there is a strong government that guarantees the rights of the workers. From an economic point of view, and for the good of the company (to increase the shareholders value), wouldn't it make sense to move the operations to a country where there is a less strong government and fewer laws to protect the workers? It would certainly improve the bottom line (profit) ... which would be good for the company (shareholder value). This would allow the company to continue to make a profit in the future .... BUT !

It is not a way to act responsibly. Would not this behavior, which is good for the company, actually be a very irresponsible way to act?




			
				Ender said:
			
		

> The other thing people fail to recognize is "Consumer Greed". This is what drives companies to find ways to lower prices. Consumers pit companies against each other by taking their business somewhere else solely on the basis of price. If anyone has bought ANYTHING based on a lower price, they are contibuting to this. Sure people lament the passing of the "mom and pop" shops, but what they don't realize is they had a hand in their demise. Off they go to Walmart to get a good deal on some item when they could have spent their money at a smaller store. And who do they blame? Walmart. They don't realize what has to be done to get them that price.


Who the 'Consumer' blames is irrelevant to Capitalistic Markets. Wal-Mart's Vision Statement should be 'To Make Money Now, and in the Future!'. If they can find a way to fulfill this vision, while providing goods and services to consumers at a lower price, that is exactly what the 'Free Market' provides.

Of course, because Wal-Mart operates in a country that has 'Medicaid' (a federal health program for low income families), allows the company to have its employees use the Federal Government to provide Health Care Services, rather than to affect its own bottom line, by providing these services. This behavior, while currently legal, is not really a way for a company to 'Act Responsibly'.

So it seems to me Ender, that you are arguing for a relatively strong role for the Federal Government; there should be laws to protect workers, strong financial oversight of public corporations, and publicly funded health care services to allow for greater competition.

Thanks for the discussion - Mike.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 10, 2004)

Sorry for choppin up your post Rich, but I only really disagree with certain parts. 



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So, given that General Electric has a great health standard today that many companies chase for loss recorded work days. Yet, there history and the history of other companies is not clean by today's standards. They were legal or borderline when the events happened.
> :asian:



Most of the companies that GE owns and operates are running under other names so GE doesn't get a black eye for their mistakes in those industries. I personally see how GE in particular is loathed in quite a few industries as careless, inefficient, arrogant and constantly avoided if possible, which is hard to do considering they own everything. 



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> yet if I can do it dump the by product into a river because there is no law against it, people will do it today, and then deal with the issues tomorrow.



This is the problem with self regulation of corporations. Because they are large enough to have a huge impact as compared to Billy Bob and his brother burning their garbage and tossing their skunked beer in the river. 



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Companies are not evil. Yet, when they close up a plant that has been there for years / decades, they are the bad guy. . . . . . They make cold hard decisions to make a profit or to stay a float and people sometimes get hurt.



They aren't evil, just cold and blunt. They base their decisions on bottom lines and forget about things like loyalty, public opinion and morality, all the mushy things. The sad part is that there is no need to run the company that way. There are large privately owned companies that have stupendously happy employees, great community interaction, very good profits and still manage to donate to charitable organizations.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 10, 2004)

Since we have thoughly strayed into the outsourcing issue. I guess I can bring this up. 

I saw on one of the nightly news shows, like 20/20 or 60 min., yesterday, an expose about a computer auction company, like ebay, that was advised to outsource all it's tech issues to India. the owner didn't like the idea so he placed a ad in the paper offering what he could afford for workers. The numbers the show stated were $80,000/yr ave. for an American programmer and $40,000/yr ave. for an Indian one. The owner placed an ad for $40,000/yr. for a local job in a local paper. He got 106 resumes and about half at way over the experience needed. The workers were happy to be employed and the company is now very profitable. 

This guy is U.S. jobs to U.S. citizens and is still surviving and making a profit. People in the U.S. will work for less if you offer. The only place where this becomes and issue is when unions own the industry workforce and even they have been forced to re-examine their positions because they are pricing themselves out of the market.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 10, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Sorry for choppin up your post Rich, but I only really disagree with certain parts.


No Problem, and I do not have problems with disagreement nor discussions and clarifications. 




			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> Most of the companies that GE owns and operates are running under other names so GE doesn't get a black eye for their mistakes in those industries. I personally see how GE in particular is loathed in quite a few industries as careless, inefficient, arrogant and constantly avoided if possible, which is hard to do considering they own everything.


Hmmm, I left this out of the first post, maybe this would help. You get what you measure is a comment in Quality metrics. If you measure lost work days then you come up with ways to avoid lost work days, including not recording the paper cuts, and so forth as they will ruin your metric  

And yes, by Measuring GE office building only, and none of the Subsidaries and or manufacturing sites, you get what you want. Figures do not lie, yet you can those who like to stretch the truth to come up with some really cool figures.

i.e. RONA - Return on Net Assets if what is measured at my company. I still cannot get a real good clarification on how this is done. You take all of your assets let us say $1,000,000 and we have $500,000 in debt and liabilities. Now you have a return or earnings of about $250,000 for the year. This would give you a 50% return for RONA, and only a 25% on ROA. So it is better to have more liabilities? This is the part that confused me. And sorry for the side track.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> This is the problem with self regulation of corporations. Because they are large enough to have a huge impact as compared to Billy Bob and his brother burning their garbage and tossing their skunked beer in the river.


I agree, regulations are required. That was what I was trying to say. Without regulations there woudl be no emission controls on vehicles. Now if we could only get to the sulfur coal burning power/energy plants.




			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> They aren't evil, just cold and blunt. They base their decisions on bottom lines and forget about things like loyalty, public opinion and morality, all the mushy things. The sad part is that there is no need to run the company that way. There are large privately owned companies that have stupendously happy employees, great community interaction, very good profits and still manage to donate to charitable organizations.


Yes, that make decisions on the bottom line. I agree. And in the long run they can stay around longer and mroe people have jobs, versus the company going under and everyone loosing a job. Yet, for those who loose their job it is tough and personal and it is always easier to blame your problmes on evil somethign or other. oh well.

I do not think we disagree at all or that much, only that I may not have presented my thoughts clearly for you to read,
:asian:


----------



## TonyM. (Mar 10, 2004)

Just a rerun. "If your young and conservative you have no heart. If your old and liberal you have no brain."


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 10, 2004)

I'm right there with Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama.  

Social liberal, economic moderate leaning towards conservative.


----------



## Ender (Mar 10, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The statement that "it behooves a company to act responsibly" is interesting. A discrimination lawsuit, which cost a company millions of dollars because of prejudice could only come about in a society where there is a strong government that guarantees the rights of the workers. From an economic point of view, and for the good of the company (to increase the shareholders value), wouldn't it make sense to move the operations to a country where there is a less strong government and fewer laws to protect the workers? It would certainly improve the bottom line (profit) ... which would be good for the company (shareholder value). This would allow the company to continue to make a profit in the future .... BUT !
> 
> It is not a way to act responsibly. Would not this behavior, which is good for the company, actually be a very irresponsible way to act?
> 
> ...



Well actually in comparison, one could argue that GOVERNMENTS creat more havoc that any business or individual can. Governments are responsible for starting and fighting wars, using nuclear weapons, human rights abuses, creating famines thru territorial strifes, power struggles, terrorism, genocide, and on and on.  Business really doesn't have nearly the power that government has. So, I am in favor of less government. Government has a far far worse track record that business any day of the week.


----------



## KenpoTess (Mar 10, 2004)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08


----------



## Andi (Mar 10, 2004)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15

Not what I expected, much further left that I thought. That doesn't bother me, but yeah, interesting. I wonder what score I'd get if i took it again in a week.

Clearly most of the people that post here in the study fairly regularly are in the libertarian left quadrant. Why is that? Is there something about Martial Artists that attracts predominantly left (and down) leaning personalities? Or maybe we have a random anomaly. Praps the lefties/downies are just quicker to moan!

That site also had a handy link for me showing where UK political parties are roughly. I'm all on my own. Meh. Lib Dems it is then.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 10, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Products and services that reach consumers at efficient prices (not leading to waste or harm) would serve BOTH humanity and corporations.



Again, you prove my point that the test is valid.  You posted both positions!

"Products and services that reach consumers at efficient prices" This statement is clearly in favor of the globalized corporations.

"(not leading to waste or harm)" This statement is why you are a liberal.  This qualifying statement that you demand is not happening as of this moment and this is a core belief of "liberalism"

Perhaps you need to rethink your beliefs instead of complaining that the test showed you something you didn't think you were.  Your comments and many others, I feel, have been indicitive of the phenomenon on the right where people really don't understand the issues they vote for.  You can break down the questions and the responses like this for every single question.  

In my opinion, this test is showing that people who ARE more middle of the road or liberal/leaning are being railroaded on an ultra conservative agenda they don't believe in because they don't understand what the pundits are really saying.

There is no better knowledge then to truly know yourself.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 10, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Well actually in comparison, one could argue that GOVERNMENTS creat more havoc that any business or individual can. Governments are responsible for starting and fighting wars, using nuclear weapons, human rights abuses, creating famines thru territorial strifes, power struggles, terrorism, genocide, and on and on. Business really doesn't have nearly the power that government has. So, I am in favor of less government. Government has a far far worse track record that business any day of the week.


So you position is that individuals should *not* be able to bring a discrimination lawsuit against a corporation for discrimination, destruction of the environment, and any other injustice?

If this is so, what is to keep the corporations from 'behaving badly'? 




			
				Ender said:
			
		

> Well I would say corporations can reflect society as a whole.


Is not the government of the United States *supposed to be* reflective of the society as a whole, as well? 

Do you think the United States is not representative form of government?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 10, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Hmmm The discrepency? There is none in my book. Why you might ask?
> 
> I vote per person and per what I want to make a point on.  Many times I cannot find the perfect candidate and Compromise.
> 
> ...



Rich

From your post, I would say that the survey pegged you pretty accurately.  Although, I don't know very much about you so this judgement is very tenuous at best.  What I would say is that the way you vote is based off of a misunderstanding of liberalism.  Conservatives are very good at characterizing up as pinkos and marxists and the only reason it sticks is because people don't have the patience to look through the rhetoric.  

upnorthkyosa

PS - With all due respect, I think you sound more democratic then republican.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 10, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ender just gave an example of what I would call a "liberal trick question".



There are no trick questions.  Only tricked minds.  Check the reply.  If you agree with the question that ender posted, then you are a liberal for that question.  If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, don't be afraid to call it a duck.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 10, 2004)

Andi said:
			
		

> Your political compass
> Economic Left/Right: -6.88
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
> 
> ...



I'm firmly convinced that there are a lot of people in that quadrant who don't realize it or have no idea just how many others like them are out there.  There are very few media sources willing to embrace this mass of people because it would put them in direct conflict with their corporate bosses.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Rich
> 
> From your post, I would say that the survey pegged you pretty accurately. Although, I don't know very much about you so this judgement is very tenuous at best. What I would say is that the way you vote is based off of a misunderstanding of liberalism. Conservatives are very good at characterizing up as pinkos and marxists and the only reason it sticks is because people don't have the patience to look through the rhetoric.
> 
> ...


I prefer independant and I am not register with either party. And, all I ask is for you ( the party in question) to explain your plan to me. How will it be funded, and so forth. I try not to vote on emotional issues, yet, with people making it about God and or religion, I try to vote that way. When a person condemns me for my beliefs, or insults me, I vote the other way.

As to Democratic and Republic. We have a republic today and I think it works.
To have everyone vote on every issues is a little much for a democracy.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Rich
> 
> From your post, I would say that the survey pegged you pretty accurately. Although, I don't know very much about you so this judgement is very tenuous at best. What I would say is that the way you vote is based off of a misunderstanding of liberalism. Conservatives are very good at characterizing up as pinkos and marxists and the only reason it sticks is because people don't have the patience to look through the rhetoric.
> 
> ...


I still contend that that is exactly the reason behind the design of this test. I would bet that, worded differently, a test could be designed that made you realize you were more conservative than you first believed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 10, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I still contend that that is exactly the reason behind the design of this test. I would bet that, worded differently, a test could be designed that made you realize you were more conservative than you first believed.



Formulate a possible question for the test and we'll analyze the difference.  I think an opinion is an opinion so unless you are counting the votes incorrectly, which is possible, its not going to change.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2004)

See what some unabashed conservatives are saying about this test.....

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3217f16b1c.htm

one of the first sites that came up on a yahoo search.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2004)

Try...

http://politics.beasts.org/

read the designers rationale statement.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 10, 2004)

I question any scientist, soft or hard discipline, who makes statements like the author of this test does concerning having absolutely no agenda or slant to the test.  A true scientist, especially a human study specialist would openly acknowledge the possibility that there could be a slant, even if he/they weren't conscious of it - just like in hard science they acknowledge that they are only measuring something accurately to the nth degree of measurement, or that there is a plus/minus factor of such and such.  I think there are scientists out there who, like religious people, confuse their role as measurers and observers of reality with the role of makers/definers of reality.

I am not saying that it is WAY out there, but it is, by nature of the background of the authors, the unconcious bias of the authors, the denial of any inaccuracies or biases is skewed.

What 'master martial artist' would ever be taken seriously if he said that he had the ultimate technique or the absolutely unbeatable defense.  MArtists are, to a degree scientists of physics/psychology/ergonomics... and can't make such a claim, why should I take, on face value these claims.  I respect the work, but I recognize the 'plus/minus' of it as well.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 10, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Try... http://politics.beasts.org/  read the designers rationale statement.


On this survey ... I scored 


-6.8694    Left - Right
+2.8939    Pragmatic - Idealistic


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 10, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I question any scientist, soft or hard discipline, who makes statements like the author of this test does concerning having absolutely no agenda or slant to the test. A true scientist, especially a human study specialist would openly acknowledge the possibility that there could be a slant, even if he/they weren't conscious of it - just like in hard science they acknowledge that they are only measuring something accurately to the nth degree of measurement, or that there is a plus/minus factor of such and such. I think there are scientists out there who, like religious people, confuse their role as measurers and observers of reality with the role of makers/definers of reality.


Loki 09789, are you making this statement about the first web-site, or the second?

Political Compass states that its purpose to help broaded the definitions of political point of veiw to something more than just 'Left-Right'.

Whereas:

Politics.Beast states that its purpose is to correct the errors in Political Compass.

Certainly, all those who create measurements create then in their own point of view. But scientists try to minimize the degree to which their influence affects the survey.

I find it interesting that 'Political Compass' states they do not retain any of the information entered after the result is displayed, but 'Politics.Beast' apparently does (they state on the first page, they have over 350 results). Does that mean anything?

Mike


----------



## Yari (Mar 11, 2004)

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26
Authoritarian 



Well, well

I found it difficult to understand the questions. Not the words, but what the meaning was.

/Yari


----------



## Yari (Mar 11, 2004)

I could have been fun , and much more easy if this was made as a poll. Then we could see were the majority of the answers were.


/Yari


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Loki 09789, are you making this statement about the first web-site, or the second?
> 
> Political Compass states that its purpose to help broaded the definitions of political point of veiw to something more than just 'Left-Right'.
> 
> ...



Mike,

I am commenting on the original compass test.  The other stuff is responses/reactions.  I am sure that there are tons of sites that love and are all about defending the compass test its validity.   I don't know if the beast ref. is really about retaining the info or just the number of results the members have posted on the beast forum.  Valid, entertaining or bogus, it does get some conversations started which, as long as it is mature, is healthy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2004)

I think people find it very hard to be a complete right winger.  It takes a complete denial of a large part of an individual's humanity.  We all have the urge to cooperate with one another and we all have the urge to fear difference.  I don't think there is a way to deny one or the other totally.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 13, 2004)

I took the test with the following strong assumptions on my part...

1.  The ten commandments and the bible are the direct word of the only True God.
2.  I am a superior person (of a superior race) when compared to most people.
3.  The only people I should ever care about is myself and my immediate family.
4.  The patricians are more important then the plebians.

I scored

Economic L/R 6.0
Social L/A 5.6

I just about landed on our president.  Interesting.  Guess I know my enemy...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## pete (Mar 13, 2004)

the thing is rigged... i mean, i tend to lean a little left on social issues, but probably a little more to the right by new york standards.  this baby had me further to the left and libertarian that mandela and the dalai lama.  either that or those guys were closer to mussolini than one would have thought...


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 15, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I just about landed on our president.  Interesting.  Guess I know my enemy...
> 
> upnorthkyosa



Be glad that you live in a country where such statements are not going to lead to you being hauled away in chains and never coming home again.  It is one thing to disagree with the voted POTUS or his policies, but to consider him an 'enemy', even in jest, strikes a nerve for this old serviceman.  I swore an oath to protect your right to say such a thing...


----------



## OULobo (Mar 15, 2004)

Then you should be happy that people use that right. His comments are about a man and his policies, not a nation and it's people. Blind nationalism is a door to fascism.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Be glad that you live in a country where such statements are not going to lead to you being hauled away in chains and never coming home again. It is one thing to disagree with the voted POTUS or his policies, but to consider him an 'enemy', even in jest, strikes a nerve for this old serviceman. I swore an oath to protect your right to say such a thing...


Odd, how the POTUS can state that a U.S. Citizen is an 'Enemy Combatants' and strip them of their rights without due process, even when they are living in the United States.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 15, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Then you should be happy that people use that right. His comments are about a man and his policies, not a nation and it's people. Blind nationalism is a door to fascism.


I think his reply was directed towards the "enemy" comment, not his right to criticize....When I was in uniform under Klintons administration, MANY in the service couldnt stand the man, but I (personally) never saw a soldier that wouldnt still show the proper respect for the man when required.

As to the "enemy combatant" issue. Yes this is a good topic to test the legal issues of, but it isnt something new. see...

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr1029.html

(9) There is precedent for detaining American citizens as enemy combatants. In Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), 2 of the 8 German soldiers who planned acts of sabotage within the United States claimed American citizenship. Detention of enemy combatants who are United States citizens is appropriate to protect the safety of the public and those involved in the investigation and prosecution of terrorism, to facilitate the use of classified information as evidence without compromising intelligence or military efforts, to gather unimpeded vital information from the detainee, and otherwise to protect national security interests.
Im fairly certain that I could find other historical examples as well.


----------



## buddah_belly (Mar 15, 2004)

I was a little late getting in on this, but I ended up just slightly left of Mandela and the Dali Lama.  Sweet.  And I thought I didn't really care about politics.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 15, 2004)

I came out as -1, -1.08, I guess I'm about a centrist as they come.  

I would have expected to fall more on the liberal side, particularly on the social axis.  However, this does jibe with my general viewpoint of myself, sigh, being a centrist is boring. 

Lamont


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think his reply was directed towards the "enemy" comment, not his right to criticize....When I was in uniform under Klintons administration, MANY in the service couldnt stand the man, but I (personally) never saw a soldier that wouldnt still show the proper respect for the man when required.



Exactly my point.  I notice, and this is a stolen observation, that there are many who talk about open mindedness and acceptance/tolerance, until they find something intolerable to them and the language and tone get very narrow and opinionated.  I ran into the same thing in the Locker Room in the New Jersey article thread... polite, considerate people get real 'human' when they forget that prejudice and harassment don't have to be just about race, creed, color or religion.  It can also take the form of classism, agism, professional biases.... and then all to code speak of politeness and decency go out the window.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Exactly my point.  I notice, and this is a stolen observation, that there are many who talk about open mindedness and acceptance/tolerance, until they find something intolerable to them and the language and tone get very narrow and opinionated.  I ran into the same thing in the Locker Room in the New Jersey article thread... polite, considerate people get real 'human' when they forget that prejudice and harassment don't have to be just about race, creed, color or religion.  It can also take the form of classism, agism, professional biases.... and then all to code speak of politeness and decency go out the window.



A person whose policies advance negative policies regarding "race, creed, color, religion, class, age, and professional bias" is worthy of the title "Morgoth".

I respect your oath to serve our country.  Many in my family have made similar choices.  I did not...here is why.

I take exception to your comments about protecting our rights.  Throughout history the only people that have attempted to take away our rights have been right in front of our faces.  For instance my grandfather stormed the beaches of Normandy without a scratch and took a bullet in a strike that the government sent in marshalls to suppress.  This is the Secret History of the United States.  War has always been more about profiteering and resources and has had little to do with our actual freedom.  

My grandfather took me to the VA hospital when I told him I wanted to be a soldier.  I was 15.  He showed me people of all sorts.  People all blown up and forgotton.  I'll quote him, "You want to fight for our country, boy, you won't have to go far.  Just open your eyes."

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Mar 15, 2004)




----------



## michaeledward (Mar 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> As to the "enemy combatant" issue. Yes this is a good topic to test the legal issues of, but it isnt something new. see...
> 
> http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr1029.html
> 
> ...


It will be nice if this bill gets signed into law, however, I don't think that will happen any time soon. If we look at paragraphs 14 & 15, we can see why, I think this bill will never end up on the presidents desk.

(14) Nothing in this Act permits the Government, even in wartime, to detain American citizens or other persons lawfully in the United States as enemy combatants indefinitely without charges and hold them incommunicado without a hearing and without access to counsel on the basis of a unilateral determination that the person may be connected with an organization that intends harm to the United States. The Supreme Court has held that even enemy aliens within the United States are entitled to habeas review of their conviction. Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942); Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). 
(15) The validity of the detention of citizens as enemy combatants may be challenged by a writ of habeas corpus. As the right of habeas corpus may be effectively nullified by denial of the assistance of counsel, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant may not be indefinitely denied access to counsel. 
​John Ashcroft & Donald Rumsfeld do not want Jose Padilla to have the right to a lawyer. As a reminder, Jose Padilla is an American Citizen, who was detained in Chicago, Illinois. He is accused of plotting to use a 'Dirty Bomb', but has been held for more than a year without access to a lawyer, or to the US Court system.

Now, they may have a case with Yaser Hamdi. Even though he is an American Citizen, he was apprehending in Afghanistan, fighting on the side of the Taliban. Should he have access to the American Court system? A lawyer? He is not even classified as a 'Prisoner of War', and thus not eligible for the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A person whose policies advance negative policies regarding "race, creed, color, religion, class, age, and professional bias" is worthy of the title "Morgoth".
> 
> I respect your oath to serve our country.  Many in my family have made similar choices.  I did not...here is why.
> 
> ...



There is no secret to the strike violence in the US, look in any newspaper of the time and there are history books that cover strike riots and the immergence of unions in their bloody genesis. It isn't a secret, just not thrown in the face of a lazy, generally apathetic public.  Put the blame on ignorance on the right people.  It isn't a conspiracy of secrecy as much as a lack of interest or historical reverence of the average citizen.

You say that you respect my oath and then you take exception to my comments... part of that oath was to 'defend the constitution of the US from enemies, both foreign and domestic' and honestly, I respect your idealism that 'each life is precious.'  I don't say any system is perfect, nor do I forget that the VA system is not as well funded/operated as it should be considering the personal sacrifices of those who normally seek their help.

You mentioned how you responded when your wife was being assaulted during a tour by a fellow tourist somewhere.  You made the choice to do something when you saw the need.  Turn this into an allagory for life and say that you were the US and your wife/child was the Kurds or Afg citizenry suffering under the Taliban/Al-Q or even the citizens of the US vulnerable to terrorist activity.  If that tourist were the Tal or SHussein - establishing financial/logistic and operational capability to continue hostilities - regardless of the rhetoric, did you wait until he pulled a knife or gun?  No, you took preemptive action at the point where there was not an immediate deadly threat but a potential threat and used the appropriate action in your opinion.  After it was done, you mentioned how indignant you felt when the Sec. Guards detained you and treated you like you had done something wrong... but eventually let you go.  What would you feel like if your wife was critical of your actions and accused you of just looking for an excuse to use your violent training - basing her opinion of you on only what she could gleen from a few observations and letting her bias/prejudice act as a filter and interpreter of any action you did up to that point.  Of course she could pull up examples and data that would defend her position and criticism, but would she be right?  There is a disparity between what we know about the POTUS or any public official and what they know about the issues/decisions they make.  It is a large disparity and it makes it hard to really say what or why they are the way they are.

It is hard to know/see everything from the fringes.  Regardless of what we do know, they know more than we ever will - that is one thing the military service teaches you for sure - and yet they still stand there taking all this criticism and exception taking of oaths and being called enemy.  They still do a job that doesn't seem all that fun to me.

How is it that there is so much faith and belief in the dignity and goodness of people in your posts, but politicians/government institutions - which are made up of well intended humans - are currupt and insensitive and the 'enemy'?  Change the scale, but the structures are basically the same.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> How is it that there is so much faith and belief in the dignity and goodness of people in your posts, but politicians/government institutions - which are made up of well intended humans - are currupt and insensitive and the 'enemy'?  Change the scale, but the structures are basically the same.



This is the statement I can't agree with. I don't think that most politicians are well intended humans. I think that is the most optimistic thing I've read in a while.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 16, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> This is the statement I can't agree with. I don't think that most politicians are well intended humans. I think that is the most optimistic thing I've read in a while.



And that bias is why I think that these forum discussions of politics are nothing more than sand pounding and do nothing productive.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> How is it that there is so much faith and belief in the dignity and goodness of people in your posts, but politicians/government institutions - which are made up of well intended humans - are currupt and insensitive and the 'enemy'?  Change the scale, but the structures are basically the same.



I have dignity and respect for all people until by there actions to prove themselves unworthy of that dignity and respect.

There is an interesting phenomenon in psychology known as Stockholm Syndrome.  This is where a captive begins to identify and protect their captor.  In many ways, 911 has captured the hearts of Americans with fear.  Much of the POTUS support is based off of this fear.  This fear has blinded many Americans of their critical eye for noticing the corresponding details in history.

Fascism for instancewhat does this really mean?

1.	Reduction in civil liberties  Patriot Act I and II.
2.	Reduced freedom of expression  Cronyism and the denouncement of dissidence.
3.	Collusion of business and government  150 million in campaign contributions.
4.	Formation of a secret government beyond public scrutiny  Dick Cheney.
5.	Institutionalized discrimination  Anti - Gay marriage Amendment and a slew of other things.

The Bush Administration has pushed policies that fit these criteria many times over and if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, Im not afraid to call it a duck.  I reject the postulation that they know more then us and that is why we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Part of living in a democratic society is being informed about what is going on in the government.  The average voter should be expected to be as informed as possible and the government should make every attempt to keep the public as informed as possible.  The line we know best is the line the current administration WANTS the America people to buy so they can destroy the things we hold dear.  

I dont throw labels around without thought, just as I would not choose to fight on a whim.  I believe, there is a clear and present danger in our administration and that the direction our country is heading is not the direction that is best for all Americans.  I choose to act against this current administration BECAUSE of the evidence that I have and am witnessing.  That is part of being an American and there is no Oath binding me to this.  

As a serviceman, you are taught to ignore politics and respect the POTUS because on the battlefield, you dont have time to think about whether or not it is politically right to pull the trigger.  This teaching, thank all of the gods watching, is not appropriate for the average citizen.  There MUST be dissent.  There MUST be a variety of opinions or there will be NO democracy.  I am not a servicemen nor will I ever become one.  Nor will I force myself to respect someone whose actions fly in the face of everything that I think is right.

Al-Qaeda perpetrated an enormous atrocity on this country on 911.  There is no doubt the world is a little better now that Saddam Hussain is no longer in power.  There is also no doubt that our country will be a better, freer and more egalitarian country when the POTUS is removed from office.

I realize that the president puts on his pants one leg at a time.  I recognize his humanity and I recognize that we have that in common.  I also recognize that which sets us apart.  This is an old fight.  Patrician versus the Plebeian.  The results of that fight will be the same, historically, if we continue down this path laid out by the current administration.  George Bush is part of an old order whose rules do not work in this new global world.  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## OULobo (Mar 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And that bias is why I think that these forum discussions of politics are nothing more than sand pounding and do nothing productive.



I don't really think it is a bias as much as an opinion. I personally think that more political offices should be filled with average citizens and less millionaires. All debate could be distilled down to "sand pounding" if people minds are never changed, but there are cases where it does change minds, even on this forum. It's happened to me before.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 16, 2004)

"As a serviceman, you are taught to ignore politics and respect the POTUS because on the battlefield, you dont have time to think about whether or not it is politically right to pull the trigger. This teaching, thank all of the gods watching, is not appropriate for the average citizen."

As servicemen - at every rank, we are taught that we are to follow lawful orders.  That means that we are obligated to refuse orders that violate the laws of land warfare, geneva convention agreements, as well as Uniform Code of Military Justice (similiar to the Justice code that civilians answer to as well).  We also do have time to consider whether these orders are lawful or not.  During briefings, training, daily activities that are far different from the 'fog of war' that you are assuming is the only time that we answer orders or exercise our oaths.  Most of the time, we did/do mundane puttering and prep for those intense moments.  The majority of military types never see that level of combat because they are logisticians and support for those who do.

This is very similiar to the process/freedoms to question that civilians have.  
As far as democracy and blind faith and all that:  what about us as rep. of Martial arts.  We come into question and criticism by those who don't know as much as we do about the reality of the job/practice/lifestyle.  We know more by nature of where we have chosen to be in relation to the topic/job/lifestyle. Students walk into a class and accept the instructional/environmental and social guidelines of the head instructor/leader of the school.  If they don't like it they can either leave, make suggestions, seek clarification or do something else. But to stand at the door and complain and complain and call names and blah blah blah is not a productive practice, nor is it the lesson we are teaching our own students.   

We are admired by some for our willingness to develop our ability to exercise judgement and execute violence when things get tough.  Others say that we are war mongers because we are always preparing for fighting.... I think that it is a matter of perspective, but we - as martial artists also promote philosophies of harmony and cooperation as part of our codes of conduct and personal character development.  Regardless of what others do, we have to live with ourselves.  Would you openly call people in your direct contact 'enemies' because you don't agree with them? Or would you demonstrate some character and try and lead by example or make changes from within instead of calling names?  Based on your posts, I think you would try and demonstrate good character on that scale.  Why is it different when the scale changes?  Or when the person, regardless of what your issues are, can't hear you directly.  Isn't that the same mentallity of prejudice and racism.  "Those people" are "always" and "I know because look at this information", but it isn't all of it.  Should I say that Black people/minorities are more prone to violence and drug trafficing because the statistics and practices are there to support it?  That would go over real big!

I am not saying that you have to go along to get along.  I am saying that at the end of the day we all sleep under the same flag and status as citizen, there should be some decorum, respectful conduct that is maintained for mature discussion and consensus.

Do you have the time in your life/day to be in on every decision that the governments have to make?  Do you have the time to research and become knowledgeable on all the issues, opinions....?  Do you think that government should be wide open with intelligence gathering information/practices and technology?  The open information argument is ideal but not realistic.

The 'us' and 'them' tone when it comes to politics doesn't speak well to the possibility of national fraternity let alone a global one.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I am not saying that you have to go along to get along. I am saying that at the end of the day we all sleep under the same flag and status as citizen, there should be some decorum, respectful conduct that is maintained for mature discussion and consensus.
> 
> Do you have the time in your life/day to be in on every decision that the governments have to make? Do you have the time to research and become knowledgeable on all the issues, opinions....? Do you think that government should be wide open with intelligence gathering information/practices and technology? The open information argument is ideal but not realistic.
> 
> The 'us' and 'them' tone when it comes to politics doesn't speak well to the possibility of national fraternity let alone a global one.


It seems that you keep trying to change from the *topic* of the discussion to the *tone* of the discussion. Am I mistaken?

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 16, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It seems that you keep trying to change from the *topic* of the discussion to the *tone* of the discussion. Am I mistaken?
> 
> Mike



My comments are about the tone.  The topic of the test and where it places people, I have already commented on.  The term 'enemy' in reference to the POTUS and the implications/perceptions that it reveals establish a tone.  I think that reasonable adults who have made the choice to exercise our right to vote, but have no interest in political office, do have the right to comment on and scrutinize our officials.  But the way we do, and the words we choose reflect on us as much as they do on the topic or person we are commenting on.  We all choose to focus on the data, references and actions that will support our agenda and see it as more valid than the counter data, ref., and actions.... Opinions are opinions.

Based on where most people, who have no problem with it, have landed on this compass test there is a bent toward the anarchy, so it is not surprising to find my comments that demonstrate some hope and faith in the agendas and purpose of our officials as unwelcome or ignorant.  They are chosen, voted and accepted leaders.  Leaders are only as successful as their followers.  Even the losing candidates model this sense of national fraternity in formal statements of support for the newly elected official (POTUS or otherwise), regardless of party affilitations.  Sometimes being a good follower means speaking up, sometimes it means taking a leap of faith.  Sometimes it means protesting... but nothing good comes of 'enemy' language accept further fighting.  Fix the problem not the blame:  Vote him out or compete against him if you want to 'fix' this.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It will be nice if this bill gets signed into law, however, I don't think that will happen any time soon. If we look at paragraphs 14 & 15, we can see why, I think this bill will never end up on the presidents desk.
> 
> 
> (14) Nothing in this Act permits the Government, even in wartime, to detain American citizens or other persons lawfully in the United States as enemy combatants indefinitely without charges and hold them incommunicado without a hearing and without access to counsel on the basis of a unilateral determination that the person may be connected with an organization that intends harm to the United States. The Supreme Court has held that even enemy aliens within the United States are entitled to habeas review of their conviction. Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942); Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950).
> ...


Like I said, its a good issue to test the legality of, but its not something new the POTUS cooked up...new styles of war create new rules, we need to figure out what those are and how we implement them.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

Id be willing to bet that some of you folks would be agitated with me if I were making statements about Pres. Clinton....but your statements about Bush are supposed to be accepted as unbiased truth.....stuff like this (IMHO) is always more about partisan politics and political ideology than it is about specific issues.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Based on where most people, who have no problem with it, have landed on this compass test there is a bent toward the anarchy, so it is not surprising to find my comments that demonstrate some hope and faith in the agendas and purpose of our officials as unwelcome or ignorant. They are chosen, voted and accepted leaders. Leaders are only as successful as their followers. Even the losing candidates model this sense of national fraternity in formal statements of support for the newly elected official (POTUS or otherwise), regardless of party affilitations. Sometimes being a good follower means speaking up, sometimes it means taking a leap of faith. Sometimes it means protesting... but nothing good comes of 'enemy' language accept further fighting. Fix the problem not the blame: Vote him out or compete against him if you want to 'fix' this.


Oh youre just a facist, warmongering nazi (but I respect your service), who blindly follows the flag (but Im a patriot too), you need to become part of the "global village" (because Ive seen how well other nations have done throughout history).


----------



## OULobo (Mar 16, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Id be willing to bet that some of you folks would be agitated with me if I were making statements about Pres. Clinton....but your statements about Bush are supposed to be accepted as unbiased truth.....stuff like this (IMHO) is always more about partisan politics and political ideology than it is about specific issues.



But the problem is that you can blame all viewpoints on bias. I don't think Clinton did very well. I don't really like him and I rarely argue when people bash him (although you can't deny that life was a little better when he was in office, for whatever reason). I don't like either Bush or Clinton and I'm not really loyal to a party, but I'm "biased and unproductive" in converstation according to some (loki, I'm not really taking a shot at you, just showing how no matter what stance you take someone will find a way to try and disregard your statments).


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

So is "talking politics" pointless?? Ive yet to see anybody change their viewpoint because of it, and it only seems to foster arguement. Vote your conscience, do your part as you see it and leave it at that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So is "talking politics" pointless?? Ive yet to see anybody change their viewpoint because of it, and it only seems to foster arguement. Vote your conscience, do your part as you see it and leave it at that.



I frequently change my viewpoint when people make good points.  Loki has made a good point in regards to my use of the term "enemy" and I am tending to agree with that critique.  On another thread, someone posted some interesting information about president Clinton which showed some responsibility on his part for 911.  This is information that I did not know and now it has changed my view.  For me, opinions are fluid constructs.  They change with the coming of new information.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Oh youre just a facist, warmongering nazi (but I respect your service), who blindly follows the flag (but Im a patriot too), you need to become part of the "global village" (because Ive seen how well other nations have done throughout history).



That's right!  Because you can't love your country and disagree with the leaders at the same time!  That'd be crazy!

Sich Hiel 

 :jedi1:


----------



## OULobo (Mar 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I frequently change my viewpoint when people make good points.  Loki has made a good point in regards to my use of the term "enemy" and I am tending to agree with that critique.  On another thread, someone posted some interesting information about president Clinton which showed some responsibility on his part for 911.  This is information that I did not know and now it has changed my view.  For me, opinions are fluid constructs.  They change with the coming of new information.



Exactly. I have had my mind changed numerous times on this forum. This is a great example of how debate really helps.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> "As servicemen - at every rank, we are taught that we are to follow lawful orders.  That means that we are obligated to refuse orders that violate the laws of land warfare, geneva convention agreements, as well as Uniform Code of Military Justice (similiar to the Justice code that civilians answer to as well).  We also do have time to consider whether these orders are lawful or not.  During briefings, training, daily activities that are far different from the 'fog of war' that you are assuming is the only time that we answer orders or exercise our oaths.  Most of the time, we did/do mundane puttering and prep for those intense moments.  The majority of military types never see that level of combat because they are logisticians and support for those who do..



Did you join the military to "protect our freedoms", "serve our country", or "go to college"?  Or any combination or other.  Be honest.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> This is very similiar to the process/freedoms to question that civilians have.  As far as democracy and blind faith and all that:  what about us as rep. of Martial arts.  We come into question and criticism by those who don't know as much as we do about the reality of the job/practice/lifestyle.  We know more by nature of where we have chosen to be in relation to the topic/job/lifestyle. Students walk into a class and accept the instructional/environmental and social guidelines of the head instructor/leader of the school.  If they don't like it they can either leave, make suggestions, seek clarification or do something else. But to stand at the door and complain and complain and call names and blah blah blah is not a productive practice, nor is it the lesson we are teaching our own students.



For the last four years, progressives have been trashed by the President and Republicans in general.  We have been written off as "activists" and "focus groups".  We have had to deal with all sorts of nasty behaviour from people who, according to the test, are diametrically opposed to us.  I will concede that my usage of the word "enemy" is sophomoric in a sense.  Yet, it comes very close to describing what I feel concerning recent policy decisions.  The things that our president is doing at this moment, real "enemies" of our country did in the steps toward becoming an "enemy".



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> We are admired by some for our willingness to develop our ability to exercise judgement and execute violence when things get tough.  Others say that we are war mongers because we are always preparing for fighting.... I think that it is a matter of perspective, but we - as martial artists also promote philosophies of harmony and cooperation as part of our codes of conduct and personal character development.  Regardless of what others do, we have to live with ourselves.  Would you openly call people in your direct contact 'enemies' because you don't agree with them? Or would you demonstrate some character and try and lead by example or make changes from within instead of calling names?  Based on your posts, I think you would try and demonstrate good character on that scale.  Why is it different when the scale changes?  Or when the person, regardless of what your issues are, can't hear you directly.  Isn't that the same mentallity of prejudice and racism.  "Those people" are "always" and "I know because look at this information", but it isn't all of it.  Should I say that Black people/minorities are more prone to violence and drug trafficing because the statistics and practices are there to support it?  That would go over real big!.



There is a large difference between prejudice and racism and the labeling of President Bush as "the enemy".  I agree, the tone of this label is extreme.  Yet, these are polarized days!  When the President was elected, no one expected him to come out with policies that were so far right.  

And I disagree with the scale argument.  Reducing the argument down to a person to person level makes no sense because in politics we deal with groups.  Group interactions are different then interactions between individuals.  I can tell you that my reaction toward President Bush in person would be far different then my reaction to President Bush Incorporated.  Politically, George W. Bush is more then just a man.  Personally, we could probably kick back some soda a pretzels and make it through a good baseball game...that is if he didn't choke and if he would be willing to slum with the proles 



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I am not saying that you have to go along to get along.  I am saying that at the end of the day we all sleep under the same flag and status as citizen, there should be some decorum, respectful conduct that is maintained for mature discussion and consensus.



It's all a matter of context.  I regularly participate in local and state governmental meetings and its a different story.  Respecting someone's opinion despite strong idealogic difference is essential for compromise.  In an informal setting or informal debate, it's okay to let your passion out and fling off a few tongue in cheek comments.  Part of being a mature adult is knowing when that is appropriate.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Do you have the time in your life/day to be in on every decision that the governments have to make?  Do you have the time to research and become knowledgeable on all the issues, opinions....?  Do you think that government should be wide open with intelligence gathering information/practices and technology?  The open information argument is ideal but not realistic.



It's too easy to let this slide into a realm of excuses.  As a voter you need to be as informed as you possibly can be and there is NO excuse not to be.  Anything else is a dereliction of your DUTY as a United States citizen.  The administration has the responsibility to be as up-front and open as it possibly can about its operations.  This administration is the most secretive administration in our history and we cannot let them continue to make excuses for not being open for the sake of "national security".  For instance, discovering that Ken Lay probably had a large hand in the construction of our administrations energy policy has nothing to do with "national security".



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> The 'us' and 'them' tone when it comes to politics doesn't speak well to the possibility of national fraternity let alone a global one.



I agree, but again, it's all a matter of proper context.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That's right! Because you can't love your country and disagree with the leaders at the same time! That'd be crazy!
> 
> Sich Hiel
> 
> :jedi1:


My "point" is that there always seems to be an "iron fist" inside the "velvet glove" of politically correct speech. People say they "appreciate" the things you do then go on to bash you. Seen it in uniform and at work. Nowhere did I say that its "unpatriotic" to be against a policy or decision. Im just pointing out how many times (and not you in particular) if a "patriotic" person makes a statement about loving his country, believing it is "better" than other nations, etc. its fair game to call him a facist, flag-waving nazi etc. But if the criticism is directed the other way, they get a response like above and the door slams shut.

And I dont mean to be an armchair psychologist but, while you may be rethinking your use of the word "enemy" I still get the feeling that the word is close to your true "feeling". Which is what I thought was being questioned. The belief that our leaders are the "enemy" and not the terms used to describe that belief.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> My "point" is that there always seems to be an "iron fist" inside the "velvet glove" of politically correct speech. People say they "appreciate" the things you do then go on to bash you. Seen it in uniform and at work. Nowhere did I say that its "unpatriotic" to be against a policy or decision. Im just pointing out how many times (and not you in particular) if a "patriotic" person makes a statement about loving his country, believing it is "better" than other nations, etc. its fair game to call him a facist, flag-waving nazi etc. But if the criticism is directed the other way, they get a response like above and the door slams shut.
> 
> And I dont mean to be an armchair psychologist but, while you may be rethinking your use of the word "enemy" I still get the feeling that the word is close to your true "feeling". Which is what I thought was being questioned. The belief that our leaders are the "enemy" and not the terms used to describe that belief.



It is possible to appreciate part of someone's opinion and then disagree with other parts.  I respect a person's decision to serve this country as a servicemen, although I disagree with the usage of that service by our current leaders.

There are many things that are great about our country and we have a lot to offer to other people.  Likewise, there are many things that we could learn from other countries.  I am wary of "patriotism" because it has so often equated to nationalism.  I am more fond of realism.  Realism in the way we see ourselves.

"Enemy" is the way I feel.  I can't help it if someone takes exception to that.  At least I'm being honest.  I see so many unamerican things that our president is doing that it is beginning to become difficult to draw the line between those who have been traditional "enemies" and our leaders.  A large part of me feels like the President has declared war on the working people of this country.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

So your "enemy" opinion hasnt changed has it? Then will debating it anymore really make a difference?



> I frequently change my viewpoint when people make good points. Loki has made a good point in regards to my use of the term "enemy" and I am tending to agree with that critique.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So your "enemy" opinion hasnt changed has it? Then will debating it anymore really make a difference?



Debating it could make a difference.  It is always possible that I have gone wrong with my rhetoric concerning the President.  Loki has made the point that it is my tone that he takes exception with and not neccessarily the substance of my arguments.  If this is your point, I'll ask you the same question...how should we discuss emotionally charged subjects on the internet?  

What are the rules of engagement?

It you disagree with the substance of my arguments...have at you!  En guarde!

 :jedi1: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Debating it could make a difference. It is always possible that I have gone wrong with my rhetoric concerning the President. Loki has made the point that it is my tone that he takes exception with and not neccessarily the substance of my arguments. If this is your point, I'll ask you the same question...how should we discuss emotionally charged subjects on the internet?
> 
> What are the rules of engagement?
> 
> ...


 I suppose that I probably am having more of an issue with the "anti-americanish" tone that I am with any issue with the POTUS. I dont know if youve noticed, but I havent really defended the pres. as a person or his policies. There are a number of things that I do disagree with (the blatantly political "migrant worker" issue for example). I guess that I am a dyed in the wool Patriot. While I may not "believe" entirely in any individual politician, I do believe in my Country and our system of government. Not that you are not, but I try to come from a less "our government sucks" angle.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I suppose that I probably am having more of an issue with the "anti-americanish" tone that I am with any issue with the POTUS. I dont know if youve noticed, but I havent really defended the pres. as a person or his policies. There are a number of things that I do disagree with (the blatantly political "migrant worker" issue for example). I guess that I am a dyed in the wool Patriot. While I may not "believe" entirely in any individual politician, I do believe in my Country and our system of government. Not that you are not, but I try to come from a less "our government sucks" angle.



There is nothing wrong, ideally, with patriotism.  I am wary of it.  In so many cases, it has equated with nationism in the past.  Mind you, I'm not saying "all patriots are mindless slaves" or anything like that.

As far as tone goes...some political engagements, especially informal ones, are merely exchanges of well crafted barbs.  There is an art form in that kind of sparring and it isn't just about trashing your opponent.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Did you join the military to "protect our freedoms", "serve our country", or "go to college"?  Or any combination or other.  Be honest.
> 
> And I disagree with the scale argument.  Reducing the argument down to a person to person level makes no sense because in politics we deal with groups.  Group interactions are different then interactions between individuals.
> 
> It's all a matter of context.  I regularly participate in local and state governmental meetings and its a different story.  Respecting someone's opinion despite strong idealogic difference is essential for compromise.  In an informal setting or informal debate, it's okay to let your passion out and fling off a few tongue in cheek comments.  Part of being a mature adult is knowing when that is appropriate.



I joined the service for about the same reasons as anyone else:  Personal test, college money, paid adventure, desire to make a difference, travel... and my recruiter was a very gorgeous Polynesian/Portagese woman who had joined the service when she lost her cheerleader scholarship... I figured they all looked that good .  What I learned by joining and serving was far more important than my entry motivations.  It is the path not the destination kind of thing.  

My loyalty, respect for, and behavior towards the guy next to me and my superiors/subordinates, regardless of personal differences was more important than the differences when we had to come together.  During meetings, training planning, operational planning, daily maintenance .... professional bearing/conduct and respect were the key to getting people to take you seriously as a leader, peer or subordinate.  The 'sharp shooter's', '**** birds',... were hard to take seriously - even when they were dead on.  I learned that there were times when it was acceptable to air differences, offer opinions/options/insights and there were times to shut up and dance because the powers that be had decided on what was to be done.  I didn't always agree or understand completely, but I did swear an oath (remember that I am not talking blind loyalty here, lawful orders...).  This doesn't mean that it was all stiff and formal.  Respect, loyalty and professionalism can be delivered casually as well.  Some stuff I learned the hard way, some I learned by doing the right thing... regardless I learned.  This lesson translates all the way up and down the chain.  

As citizens, though it is looser than military services, we all 'were the same uniform' of citizenship and I think the lessons about appropriate conduct and timing of when to talk and when to shut up and dance still apply.  

The scale analogy works if you recognize that a person as a body has elements like a group becomes a single body when the members choose to be identified/associated under the same heading.  Terms like the 'body of government' or 'ship of state' are analogous statements that describe a group of people as a single identity.  Political cartoons constantly reduce the issues/parties into single units to illustrate points.  Symbols such as Elephants and Donkeys create a single body identity of the major political parties.  If scale analogies don't work, how can we talk about fight tactics as concepts that could apply to entire armies or individual fighters?

As far as contextual appropriateness, since when is decency and treating people with a little dignity ever inappropriate?  Regardless of what others are saying and doing, when is it appropriate to 'stoop to their level' if someone is treating you poorly?  Character/bearing calms people and creates a living disparity between what the 'other' person is doing and what they should be doing.  Consider the peaceful protest of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi and others who are plotted on the compass, their dignified demonstration of moral conviction with character and bearing was far more influencial than any 'enemy' level of commentary or reactive emotional state.

It comes down to the simplest lessons of pointing your finger at someone and remembering that three are pointing back at you... cliche, but still clear.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As far as contextual appropriateness, since when is decency and treating people with a little dignity ever inappropriate?  Regardless of what others are saying and doing, when is it appropriate to 'stoop to their level' if someone is treating you poorly?  Character/bearing calms people and creates a living disparity between what the 'other' person is doing and what they should be doing.  Consider the peaceful protest of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi and others who are plotted on the compass, their dignified demonstration of moral conviction with character and bearing was far more influencial than any 'enemy' level of commentary or reactive emotional state.
> 
> It comes down to the simplest lessons of pointing your finger at someone and remembering that three are pointing back at you... cliche, but still clear.



Here is a saying that describes many of the conversations that people have on this board and in real life.  "Lean back on your knife," what it means is to speak freely and without fear.  Sometimes these discussions are clever banters and sometimes they get heated because of language like "enemy".  There is purpose in speaking this way, though, over the net and in real life.  We could have this discussion in real life and it doesn't necessarily mean that I have forgotten my manners.  That is what I mean by contextual.  When we "lean back on our knives" no matter what is said, we shake hands afterward and part ways, hopefully getting to know more about what the other guy actually feels.  In a way, it's very much like sparring...

When the knives are out, then the tone switches.  Business gets done.

upnorthkyosa


----------

