Where do *YOU* think *OTHER* War Room regulars sit on the U.S political spectrum?

I don't recall anything in the bible about movies. And I know had I never said poor people should be banned from going to movies.

Wait, you mean the Bible *doesn't* say that poor people shouldn't be allowed to go to movies? Sorry, SD Jesus, I must have been misinformed.

So you are saying I hate poor people now? You tried to deny it when I called you out on it before.

I get that you compare yourself to Jesus, but note that I don't refer to you when I talk about him. What's your justification for supporting that sickening Kansas law? In the thread, your defense was just "you're a troll if you don't agree with Anung."

If you think it's wrong to mischaracterize somebodies positions, well he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

If? Which characterization of your position was inaccurate?

And stalking? Lol. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You sir should do some reflection on your lies about yourself and others. You can start with your sleazy post I'm addressing right now.

If you think I've told a lie here, what is it? I think "stalking" is appropriate, as you followed me around for years when I was ignoring you posting about me, and you still talk about me in threads I'm not even in, etc. You're pretty creepily obsessed.

So how do you think Jesus, or just a regular human being with a conscience, would feel about starving 500,000 children to death?

Not good. WTF are you talking about?

Drone striking families to death? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't change his position based on what party was in office like you have..

Again, you just lie constantly. I would support a strategy of "only hit intended targets with drones," as everyone else would. Your issue is that you're just mindlessly repeating propaganda. Doing nothing has serious negative consequences, sanctions have serious negative consequences, drones, boots on the ground, whatever. The question in any policy is "what's the best thing to do?" And given that policy (any area of policy) has tradeoffs, political opponents will focus on them and ignore the real choices. If you want to have a serious discussion of foreign policy, you should offer your opinion of what superior alternatives are and why and how we know that they're superior.

But movies are what's important in life, not nutrition or education or healthcare, arms and legs, or actual life. You feel the goverment's ultimate tyranny is not letting mothers use their Goverment assistance to pay for tattoos and casinos.

See, you're lying again (sigh). First, stop conflating completely different issues. Second, I think that dignity and mental life is very important. Telling people that if they get transfer payments (or other benefits) intended for the poor that they are not allowed to also go to swimming pools or the movies serves no benefit and is only done out of spite or an ignorant contempt for recipients of the transfers (which leads to the ridiculous belief that poor people need the gov't to tell them how to spend their money).
 
Last edited:
No, but the immigration and police brutality/law enforcement are. And I think those are huge because it's the oppressive state being coercive and outright violent towards citizens.

Immigration is straight GOP. Police brutality is given some lip service during presidential election season but it's just that. I guess there's too many coloreds involved with that issue so it's not THAT important.


If Immigration is straight GOP then Police Brutality is straight DNC
 
Jack, a guy who rationalized Bill Clinton's sanctions that caused the death of 500,000 children as "what if Iraq attacked?" Thinks that TANF Is tyranny.

FYI, this is a lie. I did no such thing, and did not make the statement that Anung dishonestly puts in quotation marks.

Entertainment is a big term and there are more cost effective ways than the movies to experience it.

And the idea that you should be determining how others spend their money comes from where?
 
The differences are huge, but they aren't ideological. Well, Chomsky has some liberal views (supportive of democracy for its own sake, for example), right? Those would be ideological differences with a left that is more results-oriented. But hypothetically, you could have people on the same side ideologically who are extremely far apart when it comes to tactics.

Right, which is why in the compass, Chomsky and Lenin would still be on the left side. So that would explain that they do share some grounds. Left libertarian would be on the complete opposite to right-wing fascists, with whom they share zero things.

It's not perfect but I still think it's more useful. With the single-axis one, I can never tell which is "more left", the Leninist/Maoist side or the left libertarian side. And I've seen diagrams with both on the far left.

But there's no natural progression in either case. Maoist China was never going to "evolve" into Anarchist Catalonia. Likewise, social democrat Sweden in the 70s was never going to turn into the Soviet Union.

With the compass, a natural progression is visible. Yeah, current Venezuela could slowly turn into Cuba or even Maoist China. And Scandinavia probably looks at some sort of anarchism as something that's feasible or at least attempt-able.
 
Entertainment is a big term and there are more cost effective ways than the movies to experience it. And it wasn't my idea, it was a position that I saw and thought it made sense on a certain level.


I don't reject JC as God, my faith is just not there anymore.

You've got your hands full with Jack now so I won't comment on the former point, except to say that I don't see anything wrong with being able to use this money to watch a movie.

As for Christ, if you don't reject him as God, does that mean you accept him as God, or that you're agnostic about the whole thing?
 
Damn Jack you're coming unhinged.

And your lying and strawmen are starting to become unmanageable.

1. I never compared myself to Jesus.
Lying or strawman?

2. Your whole "you're a troll if you don't agree with Anung" is another strawman, that just happens to be true a lot of the times in your case because you follow me around and troll and misinterpret my positions.

3. My position in the TANF thread is pretty clear, but you keep misinterpreting it.
Lying or strawman?

4. Lol @ Jack calling my lack of quotation marks a lie. maybe I missed some punctuation but that is exactly how you rationalized this deaths. It's actually dishonest of you to make a big deal about quotation marks then deny that was your argument.

5. I'm not conflating different issues. The issue is your hypocrisy. If W kills innocent people it's bad, if Clinton or Obama kill innocent people *shrugs and blames it on Nader*. But no tattoos???!!!!! TRYANNY!!!
 
Don't see your name on the list? You will be added as soon as you submit your votes!

I am dissapoint that I didn't make the list of regulars.

Boo all of you

You, @Awesomesauce, @WrestlinganJudo, and I'm sure a few more regulars got missed.

Same here, I got snubbed too!

All I know is none of the names above have actually voted yet, which happens to be the quickest way to get added to the list.


go-vote.jpg
 
Last edited:
Right, which is why in the compass, Chomsky and Lenin would still be on the left side.

But do you get that problem? Conflating tactics with ideology, while the compass is supposed to represent only ideology (and, again, it doesn't even work on its own terms).

So that would explain that they do share some grounds. Left libertarian would be on the complete opposite to right-wing fascists, with whom they share zero things.

Left libertarianism would also be on the complete opposite to right libertarianism. While fascism is pretty similar to right libertarianism in effect, though the justifications are very different.

But there's no natural progression in either case. Maoist China was never going to "evolve" into Anarchist Catalonia. Likewise, social democrat Sweden in the 70s was never going to turn into the Soviet Union.

Again, tactics versus ideology.
 
Damn Jack you're coming unhinged.

And your lying and strawmen are starting to become unmanageable.

1. I never compared myself to Jesus.
Lying or strawman?

2. Your whole "you're a troll if you don't agree with Anung" is another strawman, that just happens to be true a lot of the times in your case because you follow me around and troll and misinterpret my positions.

3. My position in the TANF thread is pretty clear, but you keep misinterpreting it.
Lying or strawman?

4. Lol @ Jack calling my lack of quotation marks a lie. maybe I missed some punctuation but that is exactly how you rationalized this deaths. It's actually dishonest of you to make a big deal about quotation marks then deny that was your argument.

5. I'm not conflating different issues. The issue is your hypocrisy. If W kills innocent people it's bad, if Clinton or Obama kill innocent people *shrugs and blames it on Nader*. But no tattoos???!!!!! TRYANNY!!!

Why don't you respond point by point to the actual post? I'm guessing because it's easier for this kind of slimy ducking and mischaracterization, right?

And I called your insertion of quotation marks when saying something that isn't similar to anything I've actually said is dishonest. It is.
 
You've got your hands full with Jack now so I won't comment on the former point, except to say that I don't see anything wrong with being able to use this money to watch a movie.
and if it never came up for discussion I would think the same, but it did and I didn't think it was out of bounds. Read the thread, or maybe just mine and Jacks points. Even if you disagree with me, I doubt you will be able to come to the absurd conclusion that Jack has, which is that I hate poor people.

As for Christ, if you don't reject him as God, does that mean you accept him as God, or that you're agnostic about the whole thing?

It's an issue of faith, brother, and mine is faint if not gone altogether. I don't reject God, so I guess I'm pretty agnostic.
 
So what's the justification for the idea that poor people shouldn't be able to use cash benefits at movie theaters? Why not apply that to recipients of transfers that aren't intended for the poor (such as the mortgage interest deduction)? And if you're scared that they're not going to take proper care of their kids and don't trust CPS or anything to deal with that, why not put restrictions on market income?

Also, why not try to have an honest discussion about foreign policy?
 
Why don't you respond point by point to the actual post? I'm guessing because it's easier for this kind of slimy ducking and mischaracterization, right?

And I called your insertion of quotation marks when saying something that isn't similar to anything I've actually said is dishonest. It is.

1. I'm on mobile so responding to your shitty broken up posts with more shifty broken posts isn't worth it.

2. The only reason you break up posts is to take things out of context.

3. I already told you I wouldn't respond to those broken up nightmares.

4. Why can't you respond to a post like a normal person?

5. What is intellectually dishonest is citing something like a quotation mark to weasel your way out of accepting responsibility for your position, which I've portrayed accurately.
 
It's amazing as many people got listed.
You and InvestiagorIL deserve spots on the pile.


I hereby judge you thusly:
@kpt018 Center right
@InvestigatorIL Centrist

May God have mercy on your souls.
Thanks for the nomination! I'm very surprised at your "Center right" classification. But I would definitely say I'm more moderate on economic issues but still lean left for sure.
 
@Anung Un Rama leftist
@Arkain2K center right
@Atheist twilight zone
@Banchan I dont feel she is political at all, simply a korean traditionalist.
@Bukowski82 besides hating religion i dont follow him
@Cubo de Sangre libertarian
@Falsedawn left
@glennrod right
@HendoRuaGOAT Like pacman going so far left he becomes far right and viceversa
@IDL I guess he would be right, but i dont get that vibe from him
@irish_thug center right
@Jack V Savage center
@JDragon center left
@Jesus Freak up as in completely religious
@JosephDredd center left
@Kafir-kun center left
@KBE6EKCTAH_CCP center right
@KILL KILL center left
@KONG-D'SNT-TAP left
@LionExMachina center
@Madmick center
@MicroBrew center
@oldshadow 1970s center left
@panamaican center left
@PrinceOfPain I would say center right, but considering what i know of SA center left, could be completely wrong.
@Rex Kwon Do educated right
@ripskater Render Caesar unto (apolitical beyond religious issues)
@Rod1 American left, mexican right.
@ShinkanPo I would guess american left, philippino right.
@SouthoftheAndes Ambidextrous
@Thames Euro right, American left.
@ZankouThe green one.

Those that i didnt named is because i have trouble associating their posting with a particular ideology or thought pattern, i just have shitty memory for certain things.

Thank you for filling out your voting ballot, senor!
 
Last edited:
1. I'm on mobile so responding to your shitty broken up posts with more shifty broken posts isn't worth it.

2. The only reason you break up posts is to take things out of context.

3. I already told you I wouldn't respond to those broken up nightmares.

4. Why can't you respond to a post like a normal person?

5. What is intellectually dishonest is citing something like a quotation mark to weasel your way out of accepting responsibility for your position, which I've portrayed accurately.

I break up posts so I can respond to individual points. You refuse to do it because you don't want to honestly respond to things people actually say. It's easier for you to dishonestly attribute positions to people and then respond to that.

You have absolutely not portrayed my position accurately (the point of your use of quotation marks was to communicate the false claim that that's something I actually said). I described my position in this thread. If you're saying a particular policy is bad, it's not sufficient to say that it had bad impacts; you must explain how it's worse than alternatives. Generally, this is what dishonest sleazes like you do--since all policies have tradeoffs (again, including doing nothing), you just highlight bad impacts (or good impacts). What an honest person does is look at the totality of the policy and all options and criticize or defend on the basis of that analysis.

Thanks for the nomination! I'm very surprised at your "Center right" classification. But I would definitely say I'm more moderate on economic issues but still lean left for sure.

Anung doesn't really think you're center right. He's just trolling.
 
If Immigration is straight GOP then Police Brutality is straight DNC

DNC lite. Extremely lite.

For example, police brutality has been a major issue for both Hillary and Bernie this election. They've been compelled to make it a major part of their platform. Or at least their speeches.

Rand Paul and Gary Johnson? Much less so.
 
But do you get that problem? Conflating tactics with ideology, while the compass is supposed to represent only ideology (and, again, it doesn't even work on its own terms).

No way. If anything, the compass represents both tactics and ideology. You could say that the x-axis represents the ideology (how equal you want society) and the y-axis the tactics (how much coercion should be involved).

It's not perfect. Politics isn't math, but it's better than the single-axis one.


Left libertarianism would also be on the complete opposite to right libertarianism. While fascism is pretty similar to right libertarianism in effect, though the justifications are very different.

Exactly. And these differences are why they need to be separated.

In the compass, the entire right side (both above and below the x-axis) justifies a hierarchical society. One is through the use of the state, the other through economic structure.
 
Note 2: Please use this thread to nomination other people, not for off-topic discussions.

This seems way overoptimistic about the number of on-topic responses this thread will get.

The only thing I overestimated was your ability to follow simple instructions.

Why do you insists on clogging my thread up with your drivels, after I've already asked you TWICE to knock it off?
 
I took a political test on here one time. It put me right in the center, not authoritarian and not anything goes and just barely to the right.
Same for me, but with a slight shift towards authoritarian. It's weird, I identify as right, but actually lean left on a lot of issues.
 
Thanks for the nomination! I'm very surprised at your "Center right" classification. But I would definitely say I'm more moderate on economic issues but still lean left for sure.
It's close, wasn't meant as a dig.
 
Back
Top