Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

2014 Political Spectrum Quiz - Who do you side with on most issues?

silverpig

By silverpig
in Off-Topic General

Recommended Posts

Dogbyte Canucks Star

Dogbyte

Posted
Posted

Explains Harper majority government.

Yeah, unfortunately the only point to voting is if you're stuck up and rich and want to protect that. All the parties are horriblly corrupt. The only thing that can be certain in an election is that absolutely nothing changes for the average person, it just determines which rich SOB gets your money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lockout Casualty Canucks Regular

Lockout Casualty

Posted
Posted

66% Liberal

59% Green

46% Bloc

39% NDP

15% Con men

Pretty plain to see there's no ideal party for me unfortunately.

As a poster I find myself agreeing virtually all the time, I wonder where you and I differ. Also surprising to see more Liberal than NDP alignment in your result. Totally not what I would have imagined. Then again, this quiz probably isn't a definitive authority on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted

As a poster I find myself agreeing virtually all the time, I wonder where you and I differ. Also surprising to see more Liberal than NDP alignment in your result. Totally not what I would have imagined. Then again, this quiz probably isn't a definitive authority on the subject.

That I ended up answering "other" to a LOT of questions probably has something to do with my results and their ambiguity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riske1 Abbotsford Prospect

riske1

Posted
Posted

I hope all you left wing bastards vote, so we can stop the morally bankrupt right wing policies of the Harper Government.

LOL, as opposed to paying for the wonderful conservative policies of today? Why do you worry about the future anyway? Not like there will be any fresh air to breathe or clean water to drink after your ilk are through.

Edit: So I did the quiz, and after seeing the questions I just gotta say, it's frightening the kind of things conservatives like. It's like a recipe for serfdom.

88% NDP

80% Liberal

77% Green

59% BQ

1% Conservative

Hey Warhippy, looks like you got some company in the 1% category.

I wonder what self imposed enviromental rules you broke that allowed you to post your views? Have you been living naked in a cave off the grid?

BTW would you be interested in paying some of my taxes as it seems clear to me by your no growth stance that you feel that you do not pay enough//.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
silverpig Canucks Prospect

silverpig

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As a poster I find myself agreeing virtually all the time, I wonder where you and I differ. Also surprising to see more Liberal than NDP alignment in your result. Totally not what I would have imagined. Then again, this quiz probably isn't a definitive authority on the subject.

If you get his results url, you can click on it and it'll show you where you two agree and differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB007 Canucks Third-Line

CB007

Posted
Posted

I wonder what self imposed enviromental rules you broke that allowed you to post your views? Have you been living naked in a cave off the grid?

BTW would you be interested in paying some of my taxes as it seems clear to me by your no growth stance that you feel that you do not pay enough//.

88% NDP

80% Liberal

77% Green

59% BQ

1% Conservative

From his result, he is actually 80% pro growth, and 1% anti middle-class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lockout Casualty Canucks Regular

Lockout Casualty

Posted
Posted

I wonder what self imposed enviromental rules you broke that allowed you to post your views? Have you been living naked in a cave off the grid?

BTW would you be interested in paying some of my taxes as it seems clear to me by your no growth stance that you feel that you do not pay enough//.

You know what I wonder? What other fallacies you can bring up in order to further demonstrate how shallow your ideology is. Let me explain:

I was born in 1984. I was born into a world heavily dependent on oil and other energy sources that pollute and destroy our environment. According to you, I have two options - either I remove myself entirely and live off the land or I shut up and do nothing to change the way things are. The second option is obviously absurd, so I will tackle your suggestion that I'm a hypocrite by not being a hermit. Removing myself from the system would affect only one person - me. The oil will still be extracted, pollution destroy our environment, and everything we see happening today. Who does that benefit? Certainly not me, I would be cold, hungry, and easily dismissed as a nutbar in the 10th degree (thanks O'Leary). More than that however, I would be living off polluted environment, drinking unfiltered water (which depending on the region of the planet could be okay, or deadly), breathing dirty air, and overall be facing many of the same issues we face by living within the system.

Now you may say, at least I wouldn't be a hypocrite and have moral ground (that is why you brought up this point, isn't it?), but what good is having the high ground when nobody listens to you? Sure, my contribution to the destruction of the environment would fall drastically, being 1 out of 7 billion people maybe you can do the math in how effective my actions would be toward achieving a goal of reducing pollution and improving our environment. Hell, pretend I'm a million people and redo the math. Are you laughing yet? Considering it's your argument, I am.

There is a third alternative that allows for both, reducing one's footprint while remaining relatively relevant to the goals of improving our environment. It's not hypocritical to work with what you've got toward improving it. What you don't seem to grasp is that people who promote sustainable development are not promoting us living in caves. Nobody says "stop using oil!". This is why we have emerging green industries that can accomplish the same things as before, while reducing the environmental footprint. Would that happen if everyone who disagreed with the way things are left for a cave? It's not about destroying what we have, it is about improving it for ourselves and our descendants.

BTW, would you be interested to live in a society where unemployment is lower, quality of life is higher, people's earnings are higher, crime is lower, and long term direction is preferred to short-term profits? I won't address your point itself, because my "no growth stance" cannot be summed up by higher taxes. It's part and parcel of a bigger vision that, as employed elsewhere in the world, has resulted in precisely what I stated. Also, not all taxes are created equal, your statement lumps them into an amorphous blob when it's actually an intricate system that can be tweaked piece by piece.

As an entrepreneur, I fully intend to pay higher taxes than the majority. I would love nothing more than to reach a point where I can live comfortably on 10% of what I generate and give the rest to building a better world. I'll be sure to post an update when I reach that point. Maybe I'll even give you a higher standard to strive for than the one set by the Koch brothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lockout Casualty Canucks Regular

Lockout Casualty

Posted
Posted

Actually I am not. Marriage is a religious institution, and in most Christian churches gay marriage is not an accepted practice.

So... don't marry people in the church?

Why do you want the government to prevent people from being married? They're not marrying in your church. In fact many don't marry in any church.

I'd also suggest you look into the history of marriage and what marriage constitutes. Your religion has its own take, and that's fine. Why are you expanding your religion's take onto the nation's citizens, under force from government that you despise? Frankly, it sounds like you only want the government to function when it aligns with you, and you want it to be non-existent when it inconveniences you.

Why does government have to play a role in our lives? I am an adult, I have self control, and I live responsibly.

I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

Do gay adults not have self-control and live irresponsibly by wanting to get married?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Colt 45s Canucks Rookie

The Colt 45s

Posted
Posted

So... don't marry people in the church?

Why do you want the government to prevent people from being married? They're not marrying in your church. In fact many don't marry in any church.

I'd also suggest you look into the history of marriage and what marriage constitutes. Your religion has its own take, and that's fine. Why are you expanding your religion's take onto the nation's citizens, under force from government that you despise? Frankly, it sounds like you only want the government to function when it aligns with you, and you want it to be non-existent when it inconveniences you.

I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

Do gay adults not have self-control and live irresponsibly by wanting to get married?

Stop reading into things that are not there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lockout Casualty Canucks Regular

Lockout Casualty

Posted
Posted

Stop reading things that are not there.

Are you suggesting I misread your post? Do explain.

I suspect you take issue with the word marriage being used by the government? Would it be acceptable if the government did not recognize "marriage" at all, and only dealt in "civil unions"? This way, you could be married in the eyes of your god, be in a civil union in the eyes of the government, and of course have gay people in civil unions which aren't in any way differentiated from your heterosexual one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Colt 45s Canucks Rookie

The Colt 45s

Posted
Posted

Are you suggesting I misread your post? Do explain.

I suspect you take issue with the word marriage being used by the government? Would it be acceptable if the government did not recognize "marriage" at all, and only dealt in "civil unions"? This way, you could be married in the eyes of your god, be in a civil union in the eyes of the government, and of course have gay people in civil unions which aren't in any way differentiated from your heterosexual one.

You took two different statements from two different subjects and tried to make into something that it was not. Please do not quote me out of context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lockout Casualty Canucks Regular

Lockout Casualty

Posted
Posted

You took two different statements from two different subjects and tried to make into something that it was not. Please do not quote me out of context.

You don't like government controlling your life, but you want the government to control gay people's lives. Tell me where I'm erring. Your two statements are not mutually exclusive.

Please, if you're actually interested in a discussion, elaborate.

By the way, I quoted full posts, nothing out of context so far as I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...