T Nation

Electoral Compass

Answer a few questions and see where you fall on the compass compared to the candidates:

http://www.electoralcompass.com/v/wsj

Apparently I’m closest to McCain and furthest from Obama - but they didn’t ask any First Amendment questions…

Mitt Romney?! What? Oh, and then Obama.

Closest to McCain, furthest from Obama.

Closest of the remaining candidates was Huckabee, but Thompson was actually the closest.

Furthest from Obama.

Ontheissues.org has a decent test, too.

High and to the right. Closest to Obama, furthest from Huckabee. No candidates in my quadrant (I don’t count Paul…).

[quote]doogie wrote:
Closest to McCain, furthest from Obama.[/quote]

That’s what mine said.

I’m closest to Ron Paul, furthest from Mike Huckabee.

Ron Paul is closest, Obama the furthest. Interestingly, Giuliani would have been the next closest…?

http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/fb.html

I am closest to Fred Thompson, but he’s out.

Next closest is Huckabee, but I don’t believe the words he says, or the positions he supposedly takes. He is a worm.

Ha, it said I am closest to Mitt and the polar opposite of Obama

Closest to Ron Paul…furthest from O’bama. No surprise there lol

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
High and to the right. Closest to Obama, furthest from Huckabee. No candidates in my quadrant (I don’t count Paul…).[/quote]

Ron Paul is the only one who doesn’t want you to be a serf — and you dismiss him.

I scored closest to Romney and furthest from the socialist candidate, Obama, mostly because of my support for the war. I think war is a perfectly natural state for humans to be in; the only reason to have peace is to get ready for another war (Nietzsche).

If war were the natural state and we were continually preparing for it it is doubtful that humans would have advanced past the controlled use of fire. The technological advancements that would have come about would have been solely directed at making war and not advancing productive means in general, for example.

War is not a natural state. I believe we, as individuals, naturally have conflicts due to our differences but they do not necessarily need to be resolved with violence – this can only come about thru learning.

Woah, nearly a bullseye on Paul. Couldn’t find anyone else in the party who’s even close. (I don’t count Huckabee, Romney, or McCain since none of them are conservative.)

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If war were the natural state and we were continually preparing for it it is doubtful that humans would have advanced past the controlled use of fire. The technological advancements that would have come about would have been solely directed at making war and not advancing productive means in general, for example.

War is not a natural state. I believe we, as individuals, naturally have conflicts due to our differences but they do not necessarily need to be resolved with violence – this can only come about thru learning.[/quote]

We don’t have predators, so Nature, being eminently logical, has us prey upon ourselves. Otherwise, the world would be overpopulated.

Violence is perfectly natural. It is only fear of greater violence (like from the police) that prevents me from shooting someone who cuts me off in traffic, for ex. It is perfectly natural for the strong to prey upon the weak, whenever possible. Plunder is easier than hard work.

We can try to deny this and people have tried to suppress our violent nature through religion and powerful governments — but it can’t work. Being violent is just like sex; it can’t be suppressed, its part of us.

“Civilization, therefore, obtains mastery over the individual’s dangerous desire for aggression by weakening and disarming it and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city.”
— Freud

I’m one mouse arrow northeast of Rudy.

Closest active candidate is Romney; furthest away from Obama.

Interesting that I’m closest to Rudy, but I didn’t like Rudy at all before he dropped out.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Violence is perfectly natural. It is only fear of greater violence (like from the police) that prevents me from shooting someone who cuts me off in traffic, for ex. It is perfectly natural for the strong to prey upon the weak, whenever possible. Plunder is easier than hard work.

[/quote]

Really? ONLY fear, as opposed to understanding and respect for human life? You may have just become the scariest person I know on the internet. I might agree that violence could potentially serve to lower the population, but that doesn’t make it “natural” does it?

I would suspect that in most species, fighting (particularly to the death) over limited resources might be a last-resort desperation type of survival instinct, rather than a general purpose population control.

Dr. Ron Paul.

I kid you not. As much as I detest the underpinnings, “philosophy,” manipulation…Dr. Ron Paul and I must be bosom buds.

At first I thought it was the superficiality of the questions and their presentation. But then, maybe this shows how a politician can arrange snippets of popular belief into a supposed policy, mislead the masses into following blindly, and rise in politics.

Oh, I forgot…that is their job!

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Violence is perfectly natural. It is only fear of greater violence (like from the police) that prevents me from shooting someone who cuts me off in traffic, for ex. It is perfectly natural for the strong to prey upon the weak, whenever possible. Plunder is easier than hard work.

Really? ONLY fear, as opposed to understanding and respect for human life? You may have just become the scariest person I know on the internet. I might agree that violence could potentially serve to lower the population, but that doesn’t make it “natural” does it?

I would suspect that in most species, fighting (particularly to the death) over limited resources might be a last-resort desperation type of survival instinct, rather than a general purpose population control.[/quote]

‘Understanding’ and ‘respect for human life’ were invented by the weak in order to convince the strong to not hurt them. Altruism is a weapon, invented by the weak.

We’ve had 2000 years of Christian morality pounded at us. What are the results?

The Nazis understood human nature. They harnessed this violent nature, refined it, and almost conquered the world.

Only man fights to the death, for his own enjoyment. Only man inflicts suffering on others for pleasure. These things should be obvious.

So, we have a problem: we could obliterate ourselves while persuing our pleasure. Maybe we need God to come and stop us, as in Arthur Clarke’s 2001…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Violence is perfectly natural. It is only fear of greater violence (like from the police) that prevents me from shooting someone who cuts me off in traffic, for ex. It is perfectly natural for the strong to prey upon the weak, whenever possible. Plunder is easier than hard work.

Really? ONLY fear, as opposed to understanding and respect for human life? You may have just become the scariest person I know on the internet. I might agree that violence could potentially serve to lower the population, but that doesn’t make it “natural” does it?

I would suspect that in most species, fighting (particularly to the death) over limited resources might be a last-resort desperation type of survival instinct, rather than a general purpose population control.

‘Understanding’ and ‘respect for human life’ were invented by the weak in order to convince the strong to not hurt them. Altruism is a weapon, invented by the weak.

We’ve had 2000 years of Christian morality pounded at us. What are the results?

The Nazis understood human nature. They harnessed this violent nature, refined it, and almost conquered the world.

Only man fights to the death, for his own enjoyment. Only man inflicts suffering on others for pleasure. These things should be obvious.

So, we have a problem: we could obliterate ourselves while persuing our pleasure. Maybe we need God to come and stop us, as in Arthur Clarke’s 2001…

[/quote]

Are you serious about this, or just making a point for the sake of discussion?

I see this turning into a “is man intrinsically good?” debate.