57 replies to this topic

[General Kirkov]

CodeCat, on 28 Aug 2007, 12:28, said:

A better way of looking at it is a 2-axis system. The vertical axis represents policy on government intervention in personal issues, the horizontal axis represents policy on intervention in economic issues. Placed on that axis, fascism peaks at the very top, being strongly authoritarian, but it's also in the middle horizontally because it is quite moderate on economic issues. The USSR under Stalin would be placed in the far top-left corner, meaning strong government control of both economy and personal matters. George W Bush would be in the upper right, being authoritarian but promoting less intervention in economy (i.e. a free market). My own policy would be towards the bottom left, advocating stronger control over economy but emphasizing personal freedoms.

As I said I presented a very simple model. With the two axis system everything gets confused. For example: am I far top right? Or am I Bottom left? The model you present would be more useful in a political science class where most everyone understands "politics". Even then it's confusing as hell.

As for President Bush, aren't the policies of the US Gov. dicated by congress and then ratified by the senate and finnaly approved by the president?

Edited by Capt. Kirkov, 29 August 2007 - 14:58.

[spiderspag]

Um... it dosen't really work that way in practice I hate to tell you.

And the two axis political compass isn't that hard: see for yourself.
You can even plot yourself on the compass by taking a quick test if you wish.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[General Kirkov]

Well it put about where I stand slightly to the "above and right" meaning two squares up and two squares right. How ever I think the tesing sydtem employed is flawed.

A: there is not a "No opininion" answer.

B: Some of the questions are biased. Especialy the ones pertaining to corporations.

C: Well as I said earlier its complicated and looking at the results: It's not really how I'd classify myself.

Economic Left/Right: 2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.46

[Jamie^]

Russia and the UK are really having its own cold war at the moment, and it all started because a former russian spy needed to be killed, and unfortunatley, that spy lived in the UK, since then, spy planes from russia have had to be told to fuck off basically a few times, the russians expelled the UK embassy from russia so in retaliation, we expelled their embassy from the UK, allsorts of shit is flying over the place, AND on top of that the US wants to build a missle defence sheild which practically borders in Russia, why dont we just get a fucking peaceful soloution, we dont want another cold war, definatly not

[Kamikazi]

omg... what the hell are they doing back there

[AllStarZ]

People's Liberation Army, on 16 Aug 2007, 2:44, said:

Russia/USSR lost the Cold War at the moment where the "resources and talent", resources as in guns, beans and bandaids, talent as in available personal that excel at their fields became unbalanced. Not only do you need a strong military might to make your country a superpower, you also need a giant infrastructure, road networks, financial hubs, hospitals, airports to support the war machine.
For a long while after WWII, USSR's financial and infrastructure actually held out when it came to supporting Russia's military. But too many resources, too much talent was lot in the Afghan war, which directly caused Russia to go deeply into the red in both fields, collapsing the entire system. In short, Russia's ruthlessness in war preparation and the intent to spread communism backfired.

No....

The reason why the USSR collapsed is because they discredited their own ideology, power and Gorbachev's reforms actually exacerbated the problem.
----------
This is all ridiculous. No one nation has sovereignty over Antarctica, so why the North Pole? Oh right, of course. Because it isn't a useless lump of ice. Frankly I think it should be an international zone. Because the U.S. as sure as hell won't let Russia near it, and Canada, Norway and Denmark don't have the resources to maintain control over it. If the U.S. moves in, it will be accused of imperialism, and either other countries will turn a blind eye to it or raise tariffs, which decreases the usefulness of claiming the place in the first place.

Edited by AllStarZ, 16 September 2007 - 02:59.

[General Kirkov]

Jamie^, on 15 Sep 2007, 6:37, said:

Russia and the UK are really having its own cold war at the moment, and it all started because a former russian spy needed to be killed, and unfortunatley, that spy lived in the UK, since then, spy planes from russia have had to be told to fuck off basically a few times, the russians expelled the UK embassy from russia so in retaliation, we expelled their embassy from the UK, allsorts of shit is flying over the place, AND on top of that the US wants to build a missle defence sheild which practically borders in Russia, why dont we just get a fucking peaceful soloution, we dont want another cold war, definatly not

Actually the cold war was good for the US economy and seeing how it's collapsing right now, creating a little tension may be a good thing.

[Areze]

It's odd that tension and "rattling the sabers" kills most countries economies, ours flourishes. It's weird. But I hope it happens after Bush gets out, I don't want him presiding over it.