I was emailed the following satirical political quiz that you may enjoy…
A SATIRICAL POLITICAL BELIEFS ASSESSMENT TEST: A Humorous Political Party Quiz to Test If You’re an Archconservative, Leftwing Wacko, Antigovernment Libertine or a Commie Sympathizer
Five Sample Test Questions Follow: ==========================================
Key to abbreviations in test questions that follow:
CONS: Conservative (Archconservative)
LIBL: Liberal (Leftwing Wacko)
LBRT: Libertarian (Antigovernment Libertine)
COMM: Communist (Commie Sympathizer)
1: Government’s practice of stealing from the rich to give to the poor is…
CONS: a crime.
LIBL: a brave, generous and heroic deed.
LBRT: a foolish, misguided attempt at social engineering.
COMM: an inspiration to us all.
7: The Center for Public-Health Dietary Self Control releases a study that says eating just one jelly donut is as harmful to human health as smoking 10,000,000 cartons of cigarettes. Do you…
CONS: keep eating jelly donuts.
LIBL: demand that jelly donuts be removed from vending machines, and public school cafeterias.
LBRT: hoard jelly donuts before they are regulated off grocer’s shelves.
COMM: hoard jelly donuts so you can sell them on the black market.
10: What techniques are best for maintaining discipline in the classroom?
CONS: If just one student misbehaves, severely punish the entire class.
LIBL: Force boys who refuse to settle down to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin and Prozac.
LBRT: Anyone who doesn’t want to be in class can leave.
COMM: Anyone who doesn’t want to be in class can be made an example of.
20: What’s the best way to stop people from illegally crossing our borders?
CONS: Seal the borders so no one can get in.
LIBL: Do nothing to beef up security at the borders, and offer illegal aliens a wide array of free services.
LBRT: Allow unrestricted passage across the borders.
COMM: Seal the borders so no one can get out.
21: How would you define the word “profit”?
CONS: What business owners earn by selling a quality product at a competitive price.
LIBL: What business owners RIP-OFF from their customers.
LBRT: What business owners are rewarded with for risking the loss of their own money.
COMM: What business owners RIP-OFF from their employees. ==========================================
Click on the Web Link below to read my entire http://www.geocities.com/donaldjhagen/humoroustest.html
The Bangor Maine city council recently approved a smoking ban in vehicles where kids are present. This is just another step further of government taking more rights away. It’s obvious that the anti-smoking activists simply want smoking banned across the board, but they know they cannot get it banned outright all at once. They need to go in steps.
First, you get smoking banned in the workplace, then restaurants, then private clubs, then cars with children, then all commercial property, including apartments and so on and so until finally there is no place left for smokers to smoke. This is obviously the end goal.
Why does the government care so much about smoking? Activists claim it has to do with protecting workers and customers of businesses where smokers might patron and it’s a public health issue. I think that because state and local governments are wanting to take over healthcare through different universal healthcare proposals, such as Vermont’s Catamount Health, there is strong pressure on legislators and city councilors to reduce risks that citizens take in order to reduce the costs of running a government sponsored healthcare system.
Combining your government and your healthcare provider is extremely risky if you value your freedoms to engage in behavior that society may feel is risky such as smoking, sex, fatty foods, high-carb foods, caffeine, drinking, over-eatting, driving, travel, sports, and any number of other things people do on a regular basis that increase your risk to needing health services. With Catamount Health launching I would expect that there will be more and more restrictions on what we can do in Vermont. I for one do not want my insurance company being in charge of what I can and cannot do.
Unfortunately, when many people hear that government will “give” them something for free or at lower cost, they are quick to take it not realizing that anytime you give up a certain responsibility (such as getting your own healthcare coverage) there are almost always some rights given up. There’s ALWAYS a cost… or there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
The big question is at what point will citizens put their foot down and say enough is enough? Hopefully, not before it’s too late.
Hardy Machia, our state party chair, has been working very hard to find good Libertarian candidates to run this year for Vermont state house. The goal is to get 10, he has already found 8 interested candidates. Good job!
Hardy has been trying hard to located some good candidates in Burlington. He wanted me to run this year, but at this time, I don’t feel I can. Today, we met with Chris Haessly, who’s a progressive who’s open to the possibility of running as a fusion candidate, where he would be running as a Progressive-Libertarian. We’ve known him for a while now and I respect him and feel he’s a committed activist for causes he believes in, but after discussing the possibility it was obvious to most of us that we just have different principlies and ideology that doesn’t fit.
Haessly strongly believes that many important services in life are far to important to be left to the free-market and we believe that many important services are far too important to be left to the governement. Haessly believes in things like single-payer universal healthcare, government-run affordable housing, mandatory liveable wages, stronger public education, strong zoning and code enforcement, more government-run services such as Burlington Telecom, along with increased taxation.
These are the kind of things that as Libertarians, we fear very much. I feel it just wouldn’t make sense for Haessly to run with a Libertarian label. However, we would be very happy to work with Haessly on any specific issue that we all agree on as we did with the some Greens and Republicans on the Fluoride issue. I think its just good strategy for members of different parties to collaborate on issues where they do agree.