Are you a Neo-Con?

[Proletariat]

I've never seen a term that has been more misused on this board.

Here is a pretty interesting article by Gary North from lewrockwell.com regarding the Neoconservatives and their origins.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html


The "godfather" of neoconservatism is Irving Kristol, who had been a youthful Trotskyite. He defined a neoconservative as "a liberal who was mugged by reality." This definition is clever, memorable, and accurate. It called forth the definition of a neo-liberal by M.I.T. economics professor Lester Thurow: "A liberal who was mugged by reality, but who has declined to press charges."




It was no secret that many of the founders were Jews. (So, by the way, have been its most articulate opponents: Murray Rothbard and Paul Gottfried.)




What becomes apparent in studying the rise of the neoconservative movement is this: (1) it is not a broadly based grass roots movement; rather, it is a movement of institutionally subsidized professors and essayists; (2) its founding members had spent their formative years as Democrats or (in some cases) as Trotskyites; (3) they had gained tenured positions at America's premier universities before they made to journey into the political swamps; (4) they gained access to influence in the Reagan years as conservatives.

So, are you a Neo-Con? Here's a nice quiz to help you find out. I'm a Realist, apparently.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I've never seen a term that has been more misused on this board.

Cant argue with that as Ive been called one more times than I can count.


I'm a Realist, apparently.

I got the same answer.

[King of Atlantis]

It said i was a liberal, never would have guessed that one... ~;)

[Proletariat]

I wanted to be a Neo-Con. Maybe they disallowed it since I've actually served on active duty and I'm not Jewish.

:happyg:

[JAG]

Based on your answers, you are most likely a liberal. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.

Did I win mummy, did I win!!!?!!!!!!!?!

[King of Atlantis]

Did I win mummy, did I win!!!?!!!!!!!?!

yep you won ~D

[Proletariat]

Did any of you find any of the questions actually thought provoking?

The one that stumped me was the Iran question. I really don't know what to do with those turkeys. All the others it was rather clear cut where I stood.

[Byzantine Prince]

Liberal

Liberals…

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

I never knew I was a liberal. Now I'm ashamed. :embarassed:

~;) ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As I understand it, Neo-Conservatism is largely about taking every opportunity to secure America's place in the world, no? About not wasting an opportunity to increase our international strength?

Wrong.

[Proletariat]

As I understand it, Neo-Conservatism is largely about taking every opportunity to secure America's place in the world, no?

Maybe if you switch America for Democracy.

Did you read the Lew Rockwell article?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yup its more like they believe its americas destiny and duty to spread democracy around the world.

[King of Atlantis]

Yup its more like they believe its americas destiny and duty to spread democracy around the world.


Then im the opposite of that. I believe it is up to a country for what type of government it wants.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That explains why you came up as a liberal. How about countries like Iraq where the people didn t get to pick what type of government they want?

[King of Atlantis]

That explains why you came up as a liberal. How about countries like Iraq where the people didn t get to pick what type of government they want?

Look at the french revelution. People were in an oppresive government, but they took it upon themselves to change it.

If Iraq had shown some kind of effort to get freedom, then i would fully support a war to try and help them, but that was simply not the case.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So unless people are willing to fight and die for their freedom they deserve what they get?

[King of Atlantis]

Many Innocent people of Iraq have died, for freedom that they didnt ask for. And yes they should fight and die for their freedom if they really want it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

All it's doing is costing money and lives,

Do you really believe this?


while giving that scumbag in the whitehouse all the opportunities in the world to complete his "Big Government" agenda.

I think you have him confused with a democrat though for a republican he certainly hasnt done anything much in decreasing the size of government. But then again who has. Its a monster on the loose as Steppenwolf says.


God help us if we get another one like Bush in 2008.

Yes hopefully we will get someone far more conservative.

[Divinus Arma]

Realist, apparently.

I would say that this is based on the fact that I cannot equate American power to world peace. Power creates an uneasy stability, but not much more. Many of those throughout history must have seen world peace in their visions to conquer the world.

China will rise to a position of power that will rival the United States at every level. Should we attack them becasue of this in order to remain the only superpower? Of course not. If they surpass us in power, it will make little difference. The United States has enough military might to destroy the world in under an hour. We should not fret in jealousy at the rise of others. We should stand with them with our eyes open. We have more than enough clout on this planet. It does not mean we must always be the world leader. It is better to assume that we will decline safely and steadily in power and accept it. It's not like we are going to be overrun!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Based on your answers, you are most likely a neoconservative . Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective

there you have it - i wasnt all that impressed with the answers
it is never that cut and dry

i always thought i was a mixture of realist and neo-con
i dont support israel all that much
i think iraq as a stable ally will be a great alternative - especially if it is successful

[Divinus Arma]

there you have it - i wasnt all that impressed with the answers
it is never that cut and dry

I agree. I thought the wording on the questions was biased.

Kind of like:

What do you think of the evil imperialist President George W. Bush?

(a) I think the lieing swine-sucking ne'er-do-well is good.

(b) He should be impeached.


I mean, what kind of questions and answers are these anyways? Okay okay. Slightly exaggerated, but you get the point.

Some of you know what I mean, while others are going "what, I thought it was perfectly fair!"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Neocon-never really thought of myself as one-I'm more of a Christian Libertarian.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

Apparently I'm a realist... who knew?


I've never seen a term that has been more misused on this board. That's because it's used by many as a veiled insult or to attempt to undercut credibility. The term "conservative" just doesnt have enough negative connotations attached to it I guess. ~D

[King of Atlantis]

Do you really believe this?

I think the end result will be far from good. Most likely another dictator will come to power sooner or later.




Yes hopefully we will get someone far more conservative.

Hopefully we get someone who is far smarter.

I think McCain would have been the best choice for a president last election, though i dont know if he even wants the job.

[PanzerJaeger]

Based on your answers, you are most likely a neoconservative. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.

Hmm, only problem is I never went through the ignorant bliss of youthful liberalism. Ive always been in the cold world of reality.

[sharrukin]

I got;Realist
Realists…

* Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
* Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
* Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
* Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
* Weigh the political costs of foreign action
* Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

I'm not sure Canadian's are allowed to take the test, but I did anyway.

[Lemur]

Did any of you find any of the questions actually thought provoking?
Yes. Despite the four answers, I had to fudge on more than half, since my views were represented by none. Iran is certainly a huge question, and none of the answers provided really summed up our options. Or maybe it's that our options are not appetizing. Dunno.

Realist, BTW.

[Productivity]

Realist. Which is unsurprising for me. It all comes down to marginal gains and margina costs. I opposed the war in Iraq, becaus it was useless, Iraq eas never a threat, whereas Iran really needed removing. Call me heartless, but the Iraqis could have had twenty more years of Saddam, if N. Korea and Iran could have been dealt with instead. They are the threats, not Iraq. You deal with what threatens you first, not what is an ideological target.

That last question was stupid though, two were essentially all ahead and damn the deficits, and the other two were do nothing abroad, increase domestic spending :dizzy2:.

Sorry about my bad typing in this post, for some reason my backspace and delete keys aren;t working, relegating me to using cut and paste to clean pu errors. Quite frustrating to say hte lkejast :wall:

[JAG]

All these conservatives coming out as 'realist'. Pft, nothing rational or real about being a conservative, merely cold hearted, fantasy worlds. ~;)

[Don Corleone]

I'm a little scared by my answer, because it puts me in the Pat Buchanan/Cal Coolidege camp, and there's plenty they and I will never see eye to eye on. They take their views on a nationalist 'the world is not worthy of our notice ' philosophy, and I'm just afraid there's nothing we can ever do right other than send cash. In any case, I'm embarrassed, but not surprised:

Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge

Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

[Byzantine Prince]

This test is horrible. I disagree with half the things on the liberal description, and yet I'm a liberal? Yeah right!

Don, maybe you forgot to read the first paragraph. I thought I was isolationist too at first, because I missed the first paragraph. :embarassed:

[ICantSpellDawg]

All these conservatives coming out as 'realist'. Pft, nothing rational or real about being a conservative, merely cold hearted, fantasy worlds. ~;)


jagjagjag

the world REALLY is cold-hearted and most of what we believe in this world is fantasy

that IS real and rational - dealing with the world in the way that seems to be the most practical - which can often mean defending what is pre-established

i have always creeped the hell out of conservatives and the only reason i get along with them at all is because of the sheer number of them and because we have mutual enemies.

this quiz is as fun as the "which spice girl are you"
it is just fodder for a bored political hobbyist rather than a realistic test
dont take it too seriously

[Don Corleone]

This test is horrible. I disagree with half the things on the liberal description, and yet I'm a liberal? Yeah right!

Don, maybe you forgot to read the first paragraph. I thought I was isolationist too at first, because I missed the first paragraph. :embarassed:

What, that the description is negative? So be it. It's how I feel. I believe two things: 1) nobody else in the world trusts the US anymore and 2) we can achieve our goals by shrinking our global reach better than maintaining it or expanding it. Call me a Nazi if you want to, I don't care. The fact remains, I've been to Europe... Dutchmen and Italians already think I'm a Nazi. How can anything more we do in this climate improve that? If the rest of the world knows how to fix the problems of the rest of the world, we need to recognize we have caused trouble and stop causing it. It's time for France and Netherlands to be the world heroes, we obviously cannot be.

One thing I found oppressive about the poll was it assumed political/military policy goes hand in hand with economic policy, and I do not believe that at all. I'm a TR Republican, and I always want the USA to get the best deal. If that makes me a selfish bastard, so be it.

[ichi]

LOL according to the CSM Im a realist.

What does that mean?

ichi :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

LOL according to the CSM Im a realist.

What does that mean?

ichi

I guess it means great minds really do think alike and that you are indeed a libertarian as we all seem to have gotten realist as our answers. There maybe something to this quiz. ~D

[Don Corleone]

Pfft on both of you. Read the Isolationist description. I am the real libertarian when it comes to foreign policy (even if my co-named political figures have me seriously questioning my stance).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Pfft on both of you. Read the Isolationist description. I am the real libertarian when it comes to foreign policy (even if my co-named political figures have me seriously questioning my stance).

I have to give you that one. I also agree with Pat alot on these things. Im a bit of an isolationist but the world is shrinking too fast.

[Don Corleone]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Pat and I came to the same conclusion for almost diametrically opposite reasons. He wants to wall the US up and say screw the rest of the world. I'm not quite that heartless, and I'm actually a huge free trade advocate (which doesn't show up in that poll, yet, they felt free to tell me I supported tariffs and worker protection, which I don't ~:furious3:) I just recognize that the world has had enough of the USA. They're saturated with the idea of us, and anything we do, the noblest action with the best of intentions, will be viewed as suspect and probably against the goodwill of the target recipient. Fair enough. That means it's time for us to pause, pull back on global policy, and work on maintaining domestic tranquility. That means no more free border policy. As I view illegal immigration as a policy favorable to business interests (closing borders means we will be driving the price of labor up to local balance points within the US) I'm not happy about that, but I'm willing to make my sacrafices. Just don't bitch at us that we dont' do enough. The rest of the world has told us we do too much already.

[Red Harvest]

Did any of you find any of the questions actually thought provoking?

The one that stumped me was the Iran question. I really don't know what to do with those turkeys. All the others it was rather clear cut where I stood.

I found most of the answers badly flawed. I needed portions of 2 or 3 to answer most of them. Their "dividing lines" were a bit odd to me, and unrealistic.

Iran is tough, because Dubya has already caused so much damage to the cause with his "evil empire" label. That approach allowed the Iranian hard liners in power to externalize against the US once again--whip up the old fears. It gave them a ready excuse to maintain a firm grip. The "evil empire" statement was imbecilic and showed no understanding of subtlety in foreign policy. Generational politics is on our side...but we can screw it up. I don't think there is much we can do to stop Iran from going nuclear. The technology is 60 years old and Iran has plenty of engineers.

Another tough one is Vietnam. It was both a failure and a quagmire. I can't agree that the strategy was right, but I'm not sure that we could have remained uninvolved either. The only way I could see to win would have been to effectively destroy the North. If you want to win a war...you need to take it to the enemy's home turf.

I'm a "realist" according to the quiz.

I don't think the neo-con definition being used is at all accurate--at least not for today's neo-cons. Teddy Roosevelt was too progressive to be a neo-con. He was very aggressive/expansionist, but that was only one aspect. The definition they use seems to ignore domestic issues nearly entirely.

[Don Corleone]

You misrepsent the man (TR). He's my hero, and I would be the first to admit he'd have a 3rd-rate thug to the White House for dinner and declare him to be the legitimate ruler of someplace we wanted to go make some money. What he did not do was throw a lot of US money, and a lot of American lives at problems that stood little to gain for the US. He had no notion of 'for the good of everyone else', and frankly, I don't either. Sorry, shoot me. You're all free to do as you see fit. I think the US should look after it's own interests. And, as crazy as this sounds to our European friends, screwing around in the middle east has been for global responsiblity reasons. We haven't gained much in the past 30 years, nor have we tried to improve our position. If you want to see us being selfish, perhaps we should do as I suggest and let you take over.

[Red Harvest]

You misrepsent the man (TR). He's my hero, and I would be the first to admit he'd have a 3rd-rate thug to the White House for dinner and declare him to be the legitimate ruler of someplace we wanted to go make some money. What he did not do was throw a lot of US money, and a lot of American lives at problems that stood little to gain for the US. He had no notion of 'for the good of everyone else', and frankly, I don't either.

Actually, I think quite highly of TR. Doesn't mean I embrace everything he was for. He was progressive at home and that was a big plus. I agree with a number of aspects of his foreign policy, although I can't help but note the excesses as well. He lived in a much different time, when Colonial powers were still alive and kicking (well...some at least), so more swagger was definitely important.

[Samurai Waki]

I got Isolationist which also worries me a bit. But I don't agree on all isolationist policies, I do think America needs to withdraw a bit from the larger international picture and be a little more self-focused, not a lot though. I very much think strong alliances should eventually lead to a Union of nations that are bound by one entity, whilst maintaining their unique freedoms, governments, and economies. I would very much like to share the same "brotherly" love that the US and the UK have with an entire cadre of nations, where an American's citizens blood is worth just as much as theirs and we value their lives as much as we value our own. I have to add that this is all wishful thinking and I know it probably will never happen.

[King Henry V]

Stupid quizz! It doesn't work! It says I'm a liberal! ~:confused: ~:confused: :dizzy2: :furious3:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Apparently I'm a realist too.
well, well, well

[Dâriûsh]

Wouldn’t it be fun if we could get this forum to autocensor the words “neo-con” and “liberal”?

[KukriKhan]

Wouldn’t it be fun if we could get this forum to autocensor the words “neo-con” and “liberal”?

Ha. That has been discussed. ~:)

[Proletariat]

Here's my first take: the notion we're being sold by the usual suspects is that these self proclaimed "neoconservatives" have somehow hijacked our foreign policy. And oh by the way, THEY'RE ALL JEWS!!!!! I don't think I've ever read anything about them that didn't point this out. Jews. Jews. Jews. These guys are Jews. They're Likudniks. Each night before bed, they get down on their knees before a big fat statue of big fat Arik and promise him that they will whisper in whoever's ear they can to ensure that the US will shape every policy initiative imaginable to ensure the long term success of Israel and screw the dirty Arabs and anti-Semetic Euro wannabe's.

Look, if the neocons have some ideas that have struck a chord of legitimacy with the American voters, that's fine. But that is all that is happening here. They can have their clandestine meetings and teach their secret handshakes and write for the National Review or join the AEI or whatever it is they do.

But we should evaluate policy as policy. Not by who proposed it. If we shouldn't be in Iraq, why do we have to come down on the ideology of Charles Krauthammer? I don't recall his name on my ballot. Why can't we just argue we shouldn't be in Iraq? Why the need to sell the argument against Iraq by vilifying the Jew-loving neocons?

Too much emphasis on who the neocons are - who the hell cares? If they're talking sense, well then, maybe this country will actually implement some of the ideas they espouse. If they're talking nonsense, we won't. If some conservatives and liberals and realists and libertarians and librarians and contrarians and plain old Arians are pissed that we seem to be implementing some of these neocon principles against what they feel is the best interests of this country - well, too bad. You lost the battle of ideas. Sharpen your pencil and come up with a better argument.

Sincerely,
Richard Perle
(I know one of you wits were gonna add that so I just beat you to it)

[Proletariat]

Nm.

[Kagemusha]

So unless people are willing to fight and die for their freedom they deserve what they get?

Yes. :bow:

[Pindar]

I got Realist.

[ichi]

Wouldn’t it be fun if we could get this forum to autocensor the words “neo-con” and “liberal”?

and like my email inbox filled with advertisements for \/!a GR-a and 3N\/!tra, the forum would be filled with accusations that

Pindar is a hard-headed N30-C0N and Steppe Merc is a stinkin L!b3r@l, and Gawain and ichi are damn L*I*B*E*R*T*A*R*I*A*N*S

I'd rather see the forums guidelines amended to read "Thou shalt not lump unique individuals together into convenient groups, nor shall thee label them for the purposes of casting aspersions"

ichi :bow:

[Teutonic Knight]

I am a Neoconservative:

Neoconservatives…

Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace
Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt

Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

I'm in good company!

[Don Corleone]

Here's my first take: the notion we're being sold by the usual suspects is that these self proclaimed "neoconservatives" have somehow hijacked our foreign policy. And oh by the way, THEY'RE ALL JEWS!!!!! I don't think I've ever read anything about them that didn't point this out. Jews. Jews. Jews. These guys are Jews. They're Likudniks. Each night before bed, they get down on their knees before a big fat statue of big fat Arik and promise him that they will whisper in whoever's ear they can to ensure that the US will shape every policy initiative imaginable to ensure the long term success of Israel and screw the dirty Arabs and anti-Semetic Euro wannabe's.

Look, if the neocons have some ideas that have struck a chord of legitimacy with the American voters, that's fine. But that is all that is happening here. They can have their clandestine meetings and teach their secret handshakes and write for the National Review or join the AEI or whatever it is they do.

But we should evaluate policy as policy. Not by who proposed it. If we shouldn't be in Iraq, why do we have to come down on the ideology of Charles Krauthammer? I don't recall his name on my ballot. Why can't we just argue we shouldn't be in Iraq? Why the need to sell the argument against Iraq by vilifying the Jew-loving neocons?

Too much emphasis on who the neocons are - who the hell cares? If they're talking sense, well then, maybe this country will actually implement some of the ideas they espouse. If they're talking nonsense, we won't. If some conservatives and liberals and realists and libertarians and librarians and contrarians and plain old Arians are pissed that we seem to be implementing some of these neocon principles against what they feel is the best interests of this country - well, too bad. You lost the battle of ideas. Sharpen your pencil and come up with a better argument.

Sincerely,
Richard Perle
(I know one of you wits were gonna add that so I just beat you to it)

Preach on, sister. The whole concept of neo-con, or liberal for that matter, is an attempt to create a 'smear group' you can place somebody within when you don't agree with their idea, but know you cannot beat the logic of their idea.

George Will is about as conservative as they come, and while I'm sure this is going to shock our European friends, he was adamantly opposed to invading Iraq right up until we started in March, 2003. The funny thing, is his rationale against it was much like mine, and I guarantee you'd be as offended by that viewpoint, which just so happens to support your position, as you would be by those that oppose your position.

[econ21]

Stupid quizz! It doesn't work! It says I'm a liberal!

I think the poll assumes the respondent is from the US, as some of the stuff - putting the US first - is probably not what one would expect from a realist or isolationist from another country. It would be interesting to see what non-US people on the right get.


That said, I also got "liberal" but in my case that's probably accurate (given the US meaning of the term).

[Marcellus]

Am I a neo-con? Nope



Liberals…

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor


check
check
check
check
check
check
check
check

So I suppose I'm a liberal then...what a shock that is to me

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Neoconservative

Neoconservatives…

Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace
Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt

Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Here's my first take: the notion we're being sold by the usual suspects is that these self proclaimed "neoconservatives" have somehow hijacked our foreign policy. And oh by the way, THEY'RE ALL JEWS!!!!! I don't think I've ever read anything about them that didn't point this out. Jews. Jews. Jews. These guys are Jews. They're Likudniks. Each night before bed, they get down on their knees before a big fat statue of big fat Arik and promise him that they will whisper in whoever's ear they can to ensure that the US will shape every policy initiative imaginable to ensure the long term success of Israel and screw the dirty Arabs and anti-Semetic Euro wannabe's.

Look, if the neocons have some ideas that have struck a chord of legitimacy with the American voters, that's fine. But that is all that is happening here. They can have their clandestine meetings and teach their secret handshakes and write for the National Review or join the AEI or whatever it is they do.

But we should evaluate policy as policy. Not by who proposed it. If we shouldn't be in Iraq, why do we have to come down on the ideology of Charles Krauthammer? I don't recall his name on my ballot. Why can't we just argue we shouldn't be in Iraq? Why the need to sell the argument against Iraq by vilifying the Jew-loving neocons?

Too much emphasis on who the neocons are - who the hell cares? If they're talking sense, well then, maybe this country will actually implement some of the ideas they espouse. If they're talking nonsense, we won't. If some conservatives and liberals and realists and libertarians and librarians and contrarians and plain old Arians are pissed that we seem to be implementing some of these neocon principles against what they feel is the best interests of this country - well, too bad. You lost the battle of ideas. Sharpen your pencil and come up with a better argument.

Sincerely,
Richard Perle
(I know one of you wits were gonna add that so I just beat you to it)
I am not jewish *sniffles* *lunges with newly sharpened knife* *sniffles*

[Moros]

even tough I'm not amarican I did the test and I became a liberal.

But is it me or is it just stupid to divide everybody in to 4 "groups" with only 10 questions? there schould at least been mire questions with more awnsers and more theme's and ofcourse a few more "groups" to give a more realistic test.

Oh well I'm happy I didn't turn out a neo-con.

[Teutonic Knight]

Oi-Vey! I'm a Neo-con!

[Don Corleone]

even tough I'm not amarican I did the test and I became a liberal.

But is it me or is it just stupid to divide everybody in to 4 "groups" with only 10 questions? there schould at least been mire questions with more awnsers and more theme's and ofcourse a few more "groups" to give a more realistic test.

Oh well I'm happy I didn't turn out a neo-con.

I couldn't agree more. "Isolationist" covers a lot of ground from "let's make money, not enemies" to "I don't trust any of the jokers in my government to do it properly" to "we have no right to get involved" to "let's bend over and take it and gave them whatever they want". All 4 views are quite common in the US.

[Proletariat]

For Heaven's sake. It's a stupid internet quiz from the Christian Science Monitor. Sorry it didn't have options that catered to your precious individualities.

Next time I'll try to find something resembling the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory that will tell you that you are or you aren't a Neo-Con, and how your Mother's beating you or not beating you lead up to it.

:dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

Oh my, I think we hit a nerve. :help: No offense intended, it was interesting, I just thought they were overly simplistic.

[Proletariat]

I don't know how to convey sarcasm well on this board. I was just teasing you all for ripping to shreds an already shallow quiz.

[Pindar]

and like my email inbox filled with advertisements for \/!a GR-a and 3N\/!tra, the forum would be filled with accusations that

Pindar is a hard-headed N30-C0N and Steppe Merc is a stinkin L!b3r@l, and Gawain and ichi are damn L*I*B*E*R*T*A*R*I*A*N*S

I'd rather see the forums guidelines amended to read "Thou shalt not lump unique individuals together into convenient groups, nor shall thee label them for the purposes of casting aspersions"

ichi :bow:


Hard-headed? Is that what they are calling rational these days?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Hehe. I'm a N30-C0N!

But I think I was second-guessing myself. :balloon2:

TR is one cool guy. I think we should clone him. ~:cheers:

[Red Harvest]

TR is one cool guy. I think we should clone him. ~:cheers:

Can't do that, the religious right is opposed to cloning. But if someone does clone him, then he can't be aborted for the same reasons...

If a tree falls in the woods...

[Al Khalifah]

A realist. I'm not surprised, though I am disapointed to be compared to Eisenhower - not my most loved of American presidents to say the least.