Talk:Political Spectrum - Revision history

RobSmith: /* Recent edits */

2019-02-10T07:31:38Z

Recent edits

RobSmith: /* Recent edits */

2019-02-10T07:31:14Z

Recent edits

RobSmith: /* Asked a question */

2019-02-10T06:44:05Z

Asked a question

KommissarReb: /* Asked a question */ new section

2017-01-20T14:31:52Z

Asked a question: new section

Aspire: this is on most wanted pages dont want that

2008-07-18T04:02:01Z

this is on most wanted pages dont want that

HelpJazz: missed one

2008-02-05T03:11:39Z

missed one

TK at 11:52, October 21, 2007

2007-10-21T11:52:36Z

TK: Talk:Political spectrum moved to Talk:Political Spectrum: MOS complicance

2007-10-10T09:10:19Z

Talk:Political spectrum moved to Talk:Political Spectrum: MOS complicance

TK: /* Political ideas */

2007-04-17T00:24:11Z

Political ideas

RobSmith: /* Political ideas */ still think the best route

2007-04-17T00:02:31Z

Political ideas: still think the best route

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:31, February 10, 2019
Line 507:		Line 507:
	Marxist bull. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:44, 10 February 2019 (EST)		Marxist bull. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:44, 10 February 2019 (EST)

−	Still no good. This "the parties switched" theory ~~wont~~ wash here. GOP stands for today what it always stood for - human dignity, defense of the Union, and rights of the individual. Democrats today stand for what they always stood for, immorality, enslavement and corruption. Don't waste your time, it'll only be reverted unless you can engage in an intelligent, rational, constructive and meaningful level. Stop inserting Marxist talking points. 02:31, 10 February 2019 (EST)	+	Still no good. This "the parties switched" theory won't wash here. GOP stands for today what it always stood for - human dignity, defense of the Union, and rights of the individual. Democrats today stand for what they always stood for, immorality, enslavement and corruption. Don't waste your time, it'll only be reverted unless you can engage in an intelligent, rational, constructive and meaningful level. Stop inserting Marxist talking points. 02:31, 10 February 2019 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:31, February 10, 2019
Line 506:		Line 506:
	==Recent edits==		==Recent edits==
	Marxist bull. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:44, 10 February 2019 (EST)		Marxist bull. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:44, 10 February 2019 (EST)
		+
		+	Still no good. This "the parties switched" theory wont wash here. GOP stands for today what it always stood for - human dignity, defense of the Union, and rights of the individual. Democrats today stand for what they always stood for, immorality, enslavement and corruption. Don't waste your time, it'll only be reverted unless you can engage in an intelligent, rational, constructive and meaningful level. Stop inserting Marxist talking points. 02:31, 10 February 2019 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:44, February 10, 2019
Line 503:		Line 503:

	I was wondering if anyone was interested in making a Conservapedian political spectrum quiz. There are many quizzes like this online, but not all of them are trustworthy or accurate. If we made one, it could accurately guage our location on the political spectrum with a wide range of political issues and answers that range beyond two polarized answers. Also possibly "Libertarian" and "More Government" as areas on the spectrum to go with "Liberal" and "Conservative". Does anyone feel as though [http://www.isidewith.com/ iSideWith.com] already does a good enough job with this? --[[User:KommissarReb\|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb\|talk]]) 9:42, 20 January 2017 (EDT)		I was wondering if anyone was interested in making a Conservapedian political spectrum quiz. There are many quizzes like this online, but not all of them are trustworthy or accurate. If we made one, it could accurately guage our location on the political spectrum with a wide range of political issues and answers that range beyond two polarized answers. Also possibly "Libertarian" and "More Government" as areas on the spectrum to go with "Liberal" and "Conservative". Does anyone feel as though [http://www.isidewith.com/ iSideWith.com] already does a good enough job with this? --[[User:KommissarReb\|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb\|talk]]) 9:42, 20 January 2017 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Recent edits==
		+	Marxist bull. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:44, 10 February 2019 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, January 20, 2017
Line 499:		Line 499:

	:::*Okey-dokey by me. It will need to be protected, I am assuming, for a while, to avoid constant wholesale change? Do we have a template notice to warn against lots of changes, pending posting about it here? --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)		:::*Okey-dokey by me. It will need to be protected, I am assuming, for a while, to avoid constant wholesale change? Do we have a template notice to warn against lots of changes, pending posting about it here? --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Asked a question ==
		+
		+	I was wondering if anyone was interested in making a Conservapedian political spectrum quiz. There are many quizzes like this online, but not all of them are trustworthy or accurate. If we made one, it could accurately guage our location on the political spectrum with a wide range of political issues and answers that range beyond two polarized answers. Also possibly "Libertarian" and "More Government" as areas on the spectrum to go with "Liberal" and "Conservative". Does anyone feel as though [http://www.isidewith.com/ iSideWith.com] already does a good enough job with this? --[[User:KommissarReb\|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb\|talk]]) 9:42, 20 January 2017 (EDT)

@@ Line 411: / Line 411: @@
 :I disagree with using the term ''theory'' in connection with the spectrum. There's no theory without an explanation (see [[theory and fact]], an article which I recently started).
-:And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]], the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a [[Nigger|n****]], because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"
+:And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]], the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a n****, because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"
 :Sure, we need a definition, but these political labels don't have any actual definitions, and we would be false to our readers to pretend (1) that they have definite meaning or (2) that any of us here are capable of saying what those meanings are.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 RedBlue wrote: ''Other periods would be helpful too... but this is a start...''
+{{Talk:Political spectrum/movements}}
 ==References==

← Older revision	Revision as of 09:10, October 10, 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:24, April 17, 2007
Line 495:		Line 495:

	:*Why not go with the first two paragraphs, and leave it? That is enough to explain the term. Concise is good. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)		:*Why not go with the first two paragraphs, and leave it? That is enough to explain the term. Concise is good. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
	::*The rest of the stuff is real good, and we're gonna need it sooner or later. And I have much, much more. But I still think the best alternative is to label it a theory, and that will eliminate a lot of contentious disputes. [[User:RobS\|RobS]] 20:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)		::*The rest of the stuff is real good, and we're gonna need it sooner or later. And I have much, much more. But I still think the best alternative is to label it a theory, and that will eliminate a lot of contentious disputes. [[User:RobS\|RobS]] 20:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::*Okey-dokey by me. It will need to be protected, I am assuming, for a while, to avoid constant wholesale change? Do we have a template notice to warn against lots of changes, pending posting about it here? --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, April 17, 2007
Line 495:		Line 495:

	:*Why not go with the first two paragraphs, and leave it? That is enough to explain the term. Concise is good. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)		:*Why not go with the first two paragraphs, and leave it? That is enough to explain the term. Concise is good. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
		+	::*The rest of the stuff is real good, and we're gonna need it sooner or later. And I have much, much more. But I still think the best alternative is to label it a theory, and that will eliminate a lot of contentious disputes. [[User:RobS\|RobS]] 20:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)