Take the Political Personality Test.

[quote name='smalien1']Traditional Liberal with a big penis, thats really what it said!!![/QUOTE]

Are you sure it didn't say Traditional Liberals are big penises? :lol:
 
Mine says "Jesus."

Is...is that good?

Nah, I'm actually a Traditional Liberal supposedly. I don't really think I am though. More of a moderate.
 
[quote name='KingSpike']Nah, I'm actually a Traditional Liberal supposedly. I don't really think I am though. More of a moderate.[/QUOTE]

I guess compared to the Radical Right Wing that's in charge now, Traditional Liberals do seem like moderates.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I guess compared to the Radical Right Wing that's in charge now, Traditional Liberals do seem like moderates.[/QUOTE]

Well, the test doesn't have enough questions to really be accurate. I've had multiple friends think I was conservative because I can be traditional about a lot of things and I'm also a stickler for rules (assuming they exist...if they don't then weeeee). I've surprised a couple people by saying that I'm democratic or that I'm moderate.
 
Traditional Liberal

I agree that the test could've used some more questions. Traditional Liberal sort of works for me, but I think of myself more as a moderate with liberal tendencies, so I'm probably more on the border with Traditional Liberal and Secular Center.
 
Secular Centrist.

As a minority I am HIGHLY against affirmative action (call me crazy but I like earning my way) so I guess you could say I have conservative tendencies. However, I also think the environment is as important as protecting jobs so moderate is more appropriate to describe me.
 
You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

* Strongly supportive of gay rights.
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
* Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
* Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
* Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.
 
Wow, you change the response on one question, the gay one, from a 2-4 and you go from a Secular Centrist to Traditional Conservative.

One question moves you that far?

I don't think so.
 
I was surprised abortion wasn't on that list. That is still more hotly debated than anything else they said. Prices of oil/gas should have been on there too.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I was surprised abortion wasn't on that list. That is still more hotly debated than anything else they said. Prices of oil/gas should have been on there too.[/QUOTE]

I agree it was abit odd abortion wasn't on there.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Wow, you change the response on one question, the gay one, from a 2-4 and you go from a Secular Centrist to Traditional Conservative.

One question moves you that far?

I don't think so.[/QUOTE]

Yep. This test is rather grotesque in its oversimplification of 'political viewpoints.'

I don't think gas/oil prices would be a suitable question--who *doesn't* want lower prices? Now, how to 'fix' any percieved problem with oil/gas supply/prices, that might be a question.

And some of the questions/answers end up being virtually yes/no; I see some a SC, they allegedly
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state."

I think the question was something like 'should religious values be in government' or something like that. Those aren't opposites. Religious values can be in goverment, if the candidate expresses them and gets elected. There's no harm in that. And I'm not religious, but some things that are 'religious values', I support. But I also believe "strongly in the separation of church and state;" apparently there aren't any First Amendment scholars at Harvard to understand what that actually means ['Congress shall make no law...respecting an establishment of religion.' Which does not mean the President or any other politican is not allowed to invoke God, Yahweh, Allah, Satah, Gob, whomever. A common misconception.]

And the massive generalization of 'environment versus profits'. I'm all for profits, and for proper stewardship of resources. But who determines that, and who controls it, would be a more eye-opening question.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Yep. This test is rather grotesque in its oversimplification of 'political viewpoints.'

I don't think gas/oil prices would be a suitable question--who *doesn't* want lower prices? Now, how to 'fix' any percieved problem with oil/gas supply/prices, that might be a question.

And some of the questions/answers end up being virtually yes/no; I see some a SC, they allegedly
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state."

I think the question was something like 'should religious values be in government' or something like that. Those aren't opposites. Religious values can be in goverment, if the candidate expresses them and gets elected. There's no harm in that. And I'm not religious, but some things that are 'religious values', I support. But I also believe "strongly in the separation of church and state;" apparently there aren't any First Amendment scholars at Harvard to understand what that actually means ['Congress shall make no law...respecting an establishment of religion.' Which does not mean the President or any other politican is not allowed to invoke God, Yahweh, Allah, Satah, Gob, whomever. A common misconception.]

And the massive generalization of 'environment versus profits'. I'm all for profits, and for proper stewardship of resources. But who determines that, and who controls it, would be a more eye-opening question.[/QUOTE]

I think they could have asked, "Is it worth drilling for oil even if there is an environmental risk?" (Drilling in Alaska or whatnot) or "Do you blame the Government for rising costs or the demand for crude?" (Not the best question but you see what I am saying).

Two questions were a bit odd IMO.

"Homosexual relationships between consenting adults are morally wrong."

"I am concerned about the moral direction of the country."

Morality is defined so broadly in this day and age by different people that the question needs to be re-worded IMO.

They should have asked, "Do you believe homosexuals have a right to marriage?"

Moral direction doesn't exclusively involve homosexuality. Morality can also be business practices (Enron), content in media, individual attitudes.....

I realize it is a short national survey but one would think Harvard could be a little more direct with the questions instead of abstract.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Secular Centrist.

As a minority I am HIGHLY against affirmative action (call me crazy but I like earning my way) so I guess you could say I have conservative tendencies. However, I also think the environment is as important as protecting jobs so moderate is more appropriate to describe me.[/QUOTE]

As a white male I LOVE affirmative action! :roll:

I thought the whole principle of equality was to put everyone on the same footing. My girlfriend told me she was getting a grant on the basis of being a minority... I started to laugh my ass off. I didn't know white women were a minority.
 
women who are smart enough to apply for grants are in the minority...with all those blonds that just go ask their rich dads or boyfriends for money women who do it on thier own are few and far between
 
[quote name='smalien1']I put in 3 for everything and got Traditional Conservative.[/QUOTE]

So conservatives have no opinion? :lol:
 
[quote name='Kayden']As a white male I LOVE affirmative action! :roll:

I thought the whole principle of equality was to put everyone on the same footing. My girlfriend told me she was getting a grant on the basis of being a minority... I started to laugh my ass off. I didn't know white women were a minority.[/QUOTE]

I just think in general it does more harm than good (at least in this day and age). A more qualified person shouldn't lose out because of a quota.

I know with scholarships your heritage can play a part (Native American, local resident, that sort of thing) but I never heard of a grant being like that. I thought those were all based on financial need (I wouldn't know because I had to get loans and scholarships.)
 
[quote name='camoor']There's a shock.

And throw me in the Secular Centrist pile.[/QUOTE]

What the hell? Why are you singling out my posts? Maybe I’m misinterpreting your tone, since all I can do is read your post, but it at least seems like you’re just trying to be a dick.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I just think in general it does more harm than good (at least in this day and age). A more qualified person shouldn't lose out because of a quota.
[/QUOTE]

I agree completely.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I just think in general it does more harm than good (at least in this day and age). A more qualified person shouldn't lose out because of a quota.

I know with scholarships your heritage can play a part (Native American, local resident, that sort of thing) but I never heard of a grant being like that. I thought those were all based on financial need (I wouldn't know because I had to get loans and scholarships.)[/QUOTE]

grants for business loans...getting capital to start my own place
 
You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

* Strongly supportive of gay rights.
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
* Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
* Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
* Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.

Strangely enough, the words they use are a bit strong considering I'm indifferent to gay rights (neither against nor for), believe somewhat in the separation of church and state, and am less supportive of affirmative action considering I'm asian. I'm not too concerned about the environment but I am somewhat supportive in basic health insurance.
 
You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

* Strongly supportive of gay rights.
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
* Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
* Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
* Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.


I too think this test should have had more questions. I don't think that from just 10 questions they could have recieved this answer and be so sure of it. I think that a secular centrist is close to what I am, but I find myself to be more in between a Traditional Liberal and a secular centrist. I feel that I'm more moderate than anything. Also, I find that I'm indifferent to gays and gay rights, so I'm not sure where they got the top one.
 
[quote name='Pylis']
[quote name='GuilewasNK']
I just think in general it does more harm than good (at least in this day and age). A more qualified person shouldn't lose out because of a quota.[/quote]
I agree completely.[/QUOTE]

You guys do know that quotas are illegal, right?
Affirmative action is a touchy issue. Those disadvantaged by birth certainly deserve a fair chance, but affirmative action doesn't help them, despite numerous arguments to the contrary. It just helps well off minorities (like me) get extra consideration, even when it's not necessary. Affirmative action should be based off socioeconomic status, not race or creed. Pump more money into the school systems to bring them up to par.

The main problem is that if you are a minority and get accepted into a well renowned college or job position, it's assumed that you used affirmative action to get there. My (white) friends were convinced that I could have gotten into any school I wanted to with my 1330 SAT and high 80s gpa. What a crock of shit. Affirmative Action as it is now just breeds resentment.

So. Quotas = Illegal. All cases where someone was sure they got rejected because preferential treatment was given to a less qualified minority have been proved wrong. But the first thing that needs to change is people's attitudes.
*hint* *hint*
 
[quote name='Mouse']You guys do know that quotas are illegal, right?
Affirmative action is a touchy issue. Those disadvantaged by birth certainly deserve a fair chance, but affirmative action doesn't help them, despite numerous arguments to the contrary. It just helps well off minorities (like me) get extra consideration, even when it's not necessary. Affirmative action should be based off socioeconomic status, not race or creed. Pump more money into the school systems to bring them up to par.

The main problem is that if you are a minority and get accepted into a well renowned college or job position, it's assumed that you used affirmative action to get there. My (white) friends were convinced that I could have gotten into any school I wanted to with my 1330 SAT and high 80s gpa. What a crock of shit. Affirmative Action as it is now just breeds resentment.

So. Quotas = Illegal. All cases where someone was sure they got rejected because preferential treatment was given to a less qualified minority have been proved wrong. But the first thing that needs to change is people's attitudes.
*hint* *hint*[/QUOTE]

"Affirmative action" is just another word for preferences based on some race/class/gender/whatever distinction. It's ridiculous it still exists at all. Instead of arguing about "affirmative action" or "quotas," we should be arguing about how to make the crappy schools poorer kids in general have to go to better to try and get closer to equal opportunity.
 
[quote name='Mouse']You guys do know that quotas are illegal, right?
Affirmative action is a touchy issue. Those disadvantaged by birth certainly deserve a fair chance, but affirmative action doesn't help them, despite numerous arguments to the contrary. It just helps well off minorities (like me) get extra consideration, even when it's not necessary. Affirmative action should be based off socioeconomic status, not race or creed. Pump more money into the school systems to bring them up to par.

The main problem is that if you are a minority and get accepted into a well renowned college or job position, it's assumed that you used affirmative action to get there. My (white) friends were convinced that I could have gotten into any school I wanted to with my 1330 SAT and high 80s gpa. What a crock of shit. Affirmative Action as it is now just breeds resentment.

So. Quotas = Illegal. All cases where someone was sure they got rejected because preferential treatment was given to a less qualified minority have been proved wrong. But the first thing that needs to change is people's attitudes.
*hint* *hint*[/QUOTE]

I know quotas are illegal but look at the NFL. You HAVE to interview a minority candidate for head coaching job even if they aren't your choice for the job. Essentially teams have to ask someone in as a courtesy and not based on talent. Too many people say "Oh there aren't enough black coaches". It not a matter of having an equal amount of black to white coaches. As a minority myself, that is embarrasing to me.
 
I was reading an article in Time about AA. It has a chart that showed the 'bonus' black kids get on their consideration into a college. I can't remember exactly what it was.... but it was clearly something to give minorities a better chance to get into a college. It made it possible for a minority that scored around 800-100 on SATs to get precidence over a white kid who scored 1400-1500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top