[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Oh I don't disagree, total anarchy is not a good thing. I was just surprised that you took such an obvious jest seriously.

Your test looks interesting. I'll give it a try when I have a bit more time.

Eh? You shouldn't be surprised if I have a hard time telling when you are joking. It's no big.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

Way off topic, but I do find these interesting.

I figure I should be a little lower and to the left from where it put me. I didn't like the wording of the questions, and no I don't know/care answer available.

Obviously, it's only a gross estimation.

[Geko45]

Not quite as far as I'd place myself, but about in the area I figured.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Louisville Glocker

Science is completely different than religion. We scientists rely on experiment and evidence. Religion doesn't. It relies on faith. (snd fairy tales)

Two different animals. I'll stick with science.

Nah uh! The bible says that the bible is right, and that anyone who disagrees or claims to have other knowledge is wrong. The bible says it plain as day. In your face science!

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Nah uh! The bible says that the bible is right, and that anyone who disagrees or claims to have other knowledge is wrong. The bible says it plain as day. In your face science!

What evidence do you have to claim there is no god?

A pure scientist would simply ignore the claim that there is a god until there is sufficient evidence to offer an opinion one way or the other.

Some, well, many around here actually, upon hearing the claims based on faith of others, made a leap of faith in the opposite direction to oppose them.

It is an odd predicament. Opposing faith with faith. It's a lot like competing religions, or maybe even a lot more than just a lot like?

Just an observation.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

What evidence do you have to claim there is no god?

Your own proof of the negative nonsense suggests that if there is no evidence that the negative is true. There is no verifiable evidence there ever has been or is a God. No fossil records or angels or demons. No evidence whatsoever that high order creatures love to be 900 years old. Most certainly no evidence that any creatures are immortal. No evidence that men can walk on water, turn water into wine, perform miracles blah blah blah. So it must be true that there is no God.

Now... I don't think that really proves anything substantially. But what I do think it suggests is that at current there is no reason whatsoever to assume there ever was or is a God since no evidence exists to substantiate such a claim.

A pure scientist would simply ignore the claim that there is a god until there is sufficient evidence to offer an opinion one way or the other.

Well I am no scientist that's for sure. But I live my life without the assumption there is a God because there is no evidence that there is one. NOW what I do know is that the mythology in the Bible and Koran are no more true than Ancient Greek Mythology or Nordic Mythology. That is something we can know.

Some, well, many around here actually, upon hearing the claims based on faith of others, made a leap of faith in the opposite direction to oppose them.

It is an odd predicament. Opposing faith with faith. It's a lot like competing religions, or maybe even a lot more than just a lot like?

Just an observation.

Now you're just trolling again. I won't engage you on this.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Try this and see where you really land.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Your choice if you want to share results or not.

Seems more accurate than most. The others PCs push me a bit further to the right than I'm comfortable with



The funniest thing about that test is how close together Obama and Romney are. One small square is the difference between scum of the earth and good old boy around here.



BTW Doc, I took the liberty of answering all the questions again the way I felt the Phelps clan would collectively answer them based on their press releases and interviews they've done. I tried to be more than fair in answering how traditional Democrats would answer on questions that the Phelps' hadn't much addressed. I think that's what accounts for "him" landing so close to the middle, yet still on the right.



Care to answer the questions again to try to push them further left?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Seems more accurate than most. The others PCs push me a bit further to the right than I'm comfortable with



The funniest thing about that test is how close together Obama and Romney are. One small square is the difference between scum of the earth and good old boy around here.



BTW Doc, I took the liberty of answering all the questions again the way I felt the Phelps clan would collectively answer them based on their press releases and interviews they've done. I tried to be more than fair in answering how traditional Democrats would answer on questions that the Phelps' hadn't much addressed. I think that's what accounts for "him" landing so close to the middle, yet still on the right.



Care to answer the questions again to try to push them further left?

Obviously, guessing how others would answer is far from accurate. Anyone who believes Barry is farther right than I am is either incompetent or deceitful. And your exercise met your preconceived expectations, not too surprising that you got the result you desperately have been wishing for.

There are quite a few people that believe the WBC is a business, not a church. That they don't believe what they are saying, and very carefully say it in such a way that protects them legally. But who knows for sure what is in a man's mind other than himself. We do know that Phelps and You endorsed Obama. Phelps is under that large democrat tent either way. He's on your team. Maybe you can get tickets and hang out with him at the inauguration?

[Woofie]

I don't really care for the way some of the questions were worded. I would have placed myself further down, but whatever.

[Lone Wolf8634]

Huh. I figured I'd be a little lower right than that.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

It bears repeating:

There's only two kinds of people,
those who believe in God and those who will.

Remember that when your science fails you.

There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

[muscogee]

I'm over there with Gandhi who told the British,

I like your Christ but I do not your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ..

Not surprised.

[steveksux]

About as expected, my social liberal streak cancels out my fiscal conservative side, and tend towards libertarian fairly consistently.

Randy

[Geko45]

It is interesting that everyone so far has scored firmly in libertarian territory. It seems odd that we can't find more common ground. I would genuinely like to see how theists score on the test. Any takers?

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Obviously, guessing how others would answer is far from accurate. Anyone who believes Barry is farther right than I am is either incompetent or deceitful. And your exercise met your preconceived expectations, not too surprising that you got the result you desperately have been wishing for.

There are quite a few people that believe the WBC is a business, not a church. That they don't believe what they are saying, and very carefully say it in such a way that protects them legally. But who knows for sure what is in a man's mind other than himself. We do know that Phelps and You endorsed Obama. Phelps is under that large democrat tent either way. He's on your team. Maybe you can get tickets and hang out with him at the inauguration?

Try it yourself. See how far you can get him on the left while actually trying to be honest about how he'd answer. I really don't think you have anything other than Fred running as a Democrat and the other saying he endorsed Obama (cause he's the Antichrist and will bring about the end times they've all been chomping the bit for) or you would have made with it by now.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Geko45

It is interesting that everyone so far has scored firmly in libertarian territory. It seems odd that we can't find more common ground. I would genuinely like to see how theists score on the test. Any takers?

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by Geko45

It is interesting that everyone so far has scored firmly in libertarian territory. It seems odd that we can't find more common ground. I would genuinely like to see how theists score on the test. Any takers?

I was close to the center which is where I always considered myself.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by muscogee

I was close to the center which is where I always considered myself.

True, of those that have responded thus far, you are closest to the center. Another reason why I am eager to see where some of the more vocal theists here place.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Try it yourself. See how far you can get him on the left while actually trying to be honest about how he'd answer. I really don't think you have anything other than Fred running as a Democrat and the other saying he endorsed Obama (cause he's the Antichrist and will bring about the end times they've all been chomping the bit for) or you would have made with it by now.

So, let me see if I got this straight. You want to put up your imagination up against the Phelps clan running as Democrats and, supporting democrat candidates, and endorsing democrats.

You're imagined "Phelp's" responses put into a political pigeon holing program vs. reality.


Naw. I'm going to stick with reality.

[Glock36shooter]

I played...



About the middle. Where I'd expect.

[Geko45]

Still no theist takers on Doc's test?

[NMG26]

So I am theist.

Did I fall where you thought I would?

Do I come across this way?

Thanks.

Just noticed that I am about the same as the Dalai Lama

.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

It is interesting that everyone so far has scored firmly in libertarian territory. It seems odd that we can't find more common ground. I would genuinely like to see how theists score on the test. Any takers?

I have a suspicion that some people skewed their answers to get a desired result. It was brought up in a GTPI thread.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show...1463541&page=6


All other things aside, and I mean that, these are not the posts of a libertarian.

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

If CF is libertarian then he effectively voted for the same guy I did. So what's his problem?

And if I don't mind paying more taxes but you do than that quite bluntly isn't my problem either so we're even. If you expect me to feel worse for your slight tax burden than I do for my girlfriends illness then you have a lot more convincing to do. Better make some coffee because you'll be up late.

I'm not entitled to your money. It's not your money. It's everyone's and when it comes to the point where some people are facing death or extreme poverty and others are swimming in cash I don't mind leveling the playing field a bit.

More

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

I have a different view of money than many here obviously, and I'm going to attempt to explain my thought process with an analogy.

Money isn't paper, precious metal or electronic impulses inside bank computers. Money is a fluid.

It's the hydraulic fluid that pushes our entire economy around. That fluid pushes people out of bed in the morning to go to work. It pushes our cars to our jobs and our food onto our tables. It pushes everything we want and need to where we want and need it to be. The more of that fluid flow you can control the more you can push around to your particular ends.

The banks are the fluid reservoirs and pumps of this hydraulic system. When money is put into offshore accounts or so much is locked up in savings accounts that it never moves anywhere then that's a drain on the efficiency of the whole system. Something should be done to free that fluid up and make it easier for others to use to do work for them. If the controllers of those large amounts of fluid refuse to put it back into the system by spending or investing it the answer is not to give them even more fluid. The answer is to take it back and put into the system again regardless of their complaints or the complaints of those that have delusions of someday also being able to lock up large amounts of OUR fluid in their own stagnant pools.

This is what people are starting to realize. Those people sitting on huge reservoirs of "our" hydraulic fluid and not doing a proportional amount of "pumping" are the biggest part of the problem. They're no better than those that have no fluid and do no pumping but they're a much bigger problem because they're a bigger drain on the system.

Now enter higher taxes on those individuals to get the system up to speed again and those people may be pissed that they're not as in control as they once were but the net result is that the system is moving better. This is called "redistribution of wealth" (fine if those people are so inept at keeping it distributed in the first place) or "socialism" (not really so bad if it can ever really happen without the same greedy drainers at the top) by people who have the most to lose and their respective fanboys but those people are by no means a critical part of the system. They can always be replaced by more efficient pumps.

It's kind of obvious that does not match with this.




Only way I can describe that is a position that Liberty is something that he should have, and authoritarian control is what all others should experience. It's very oddly incompatible. But it's only a test, created by people. Who knows.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I have a suspicion that some people skewed their answers to get a desired result. It was brought up in a GTPI thread.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show...1463541&page=6


All other things aside, and I mean that, these are not the posts of a libertarian.



More



It's kind of obvious that does not match with this.




Only way I can describe that is a position that Liberty is something that he should have, and authoritarian control is what all others should experience. It's very oddly incompatible. But it's only a test, created by people. Who knows.

Why are you such a pot stirrer? Bringing one thread into another and another and another. Why do you have such a hard on for Gunhaver and Myself?

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Why do you have such a hard on for Gunhaver and Myself?

Because you and I have burned him more than the others and he's butthurt about it.