Political Quizzes

[dross]

I tend to have very consistent results on every political quiz I take. Still, you can't get an unbiased quiz.

For example at Political Quiz.net they ask "Should gay marriage be legalized?" My response is no, but that is because I don't believe that our government should be involved in marriage at all, which is actually a more pro-personal freedom response than believing in gay marriage.

The questions are almost always going to show the bias of the creator.

Very hard not to show a bias. For instance, the question, "Should corporations be given government assistance," isn't neutral to some because it presupposes the existance of corporations.

This is a problem of all multiple choice questions, they must operate from a set of premeses.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
I'm sorry, but the border should be re-enforced with more security and the military if need be.

I'm curious why you think so, Ryan. IIRC, one choice of answer was, "No, let everyone in, just make them pay their own way."

I recall answering that to an immigration question on one of these, and again, IIRC, that was the "C" choice, D being, "open the gates, let 'em all in"

I don't have a problem with "furreners" but I don't think that the responsibility to support anyone who isn't working falls to anyone who is, against the latter's wishes.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

However, I took the second quiz which wasn't too bad at all. Except for the Immigration issue, I voted the last answer on all of them. I'm sorry, but the border should be re-enforced with more security and the military if need be.

I voted the last on all but two, immigration and the draft. I chose the next to the last on those. I don't mind the idea of military training in schools with perhaps having "conciseness objector" versions, and the option of voluntary training camps.

And I don't mind having stepped up security on the border but not specifically for illegal immigration, I think that could be controlled by other methods such as actively going after employers and cutting off all govt programs for them. The security would be for defense, with as easy as it is to sneak in that is imo a major risk.

I'm curious why you think so, Ryan. IIRC, one choice of answer was, "No, let everyone in, just make them pay their own way."

I recall answering that to an immigration question on one of these, and again, IIRC, that was the "C" choice, D being, "open the gates, let 'em all in"

I don't have a problem with "furreners" but I don't think that the responsibility to support anyone who isn't working falls to anyone who is, against the latter's wishes.



Blessings,
Bill

Not Ryan but I'll throw my in.
I don't have a problem with "furreners" myself, and I agree with you on your views of forcing someone to support anyone who isn't working. But I personally don't think that this country can support unlimited immigration.