Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,862
Lurker said:
I didn't finish... the test p*ssed me off too much to continue...
Top of my list:
Obviously a necessity.
Again, necessary.
Here's where I blow my stack. First of all, no, that's not how to improve morale. Second, who is calling "them" as in the entire force, murderers and rapists? Does condemning the actions of soldiers that actually abuse their power count as "calling them murderers and rapists"? Should we instead pretend it doesn't happen, and don't talk about it, for the sake of morale? To the author of this piece: if you aren't willing to go that far, why not make a clearer statement, instead of oversimplified accusations?
Again, if I believe that, should I just shut up?
The rest of the "quiz" has too many straw men, and not even humorously so...
Horrible. NONE of the following questions had an answer that came anywhere CLOSE to representing my views:
We went to Iraq because...
George W. Bush needed to do something to convince people he was doing something against terrorism, and he'd been wanting to go after Saddam anyway.
Supply-side or Demand-side economics?
Neither. Get the government out of it.
Did you vote for Gore in 2000?
Nope; Harry Browne. That option wasn't there.
So what about S-E-X?
None of the government's beeswax.
Finish this sentence: Bill Clinton...
was a mediocre president who lived up to neither the hype of his supporters nor the blithe of his detractors. The whole impeachment thing was a joke, partisan politics at its worse. Clinton did many things that warranted impeachment, but the Republicans weren't about to go after him for those because they do exactly the same things.
Libya finally "coming around" was a result of?
What if I dispute that Libya has "come around"?
How does Kerry's military service relate to the upcoming election?
Not one iota.
When Osama is finally caught, what should we do?
Give him a fair, speedy, and public trial by jury.
Probably shouldn't go here, but... Abortion?
None of the government's beeswax.
This November you will vote for...
I'm fine with any of the three main contendors for the LP nomination: Aaron Russo, Gary Nolan, or Michael Badnarik.
We went to Iraq because...
George W. Bush needed to do something to convince people he was doing something against terrorism, and he'd been wanting to go after Saddam anyway.
Supply-side or Demand-side economics?
Neither. Get the government out of it.
Did you vote for Gore in 2000?
Nope; Harry Browne. That option wasn't there.
So what about S-E-X?
None of the government's beeswax.
Finish this sentence: Bill Clinton...
was a mediocre president who lived up to neither the hype of his supporters nor the blithe of his detractors. The whole impeachment thing was a joke, partisan politics at its worse. Clinton did many things that warranted impeachment, but the Republicans weren't about to go after him for those because they do exactly the same things.
Libya finally "coming around" was a result of?
What if I dispute that Libya has "come around"?
How does Kerry's military service relate to the upcoming election?
Not one iota.
When Osama is finally caught, what should we do?
Give him a fair, speedy, and public trial by jury.
Probably shouldn't go here, but... Abortion?
None of the government's beeswax.
This November you will vote for...
I'm fine with any of the three main contendors for the LP nomination: Aaron Russo, Gary Nolan, or Michael Badnarik.
dsm said:
Not to hijack the thread, but ...
Isn't interesting how long it's taking to do this with Saddam? I'm surprised one (or more) of the major American news organizations hasn't arranged an "in-depth" interview with him yet.
I also noticed that the question said, "When Osama is caught," not "If Osama is caught." dubya lapdog, indeed!
Of course, several of the questions assumed conclusions like this.