Where do you stand?

The RED DOT on the Chart shows where you fit on the political map.
I can not figure out how to get the graph to post here TOM, but I scored 90, to the very FAR RIGHT.

CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently

support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,

while endorsing government action to defend morality and the

traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong

military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market

economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

The only reason I did not hit 100 to the right , I suspect, is the fact that I do not support FREE TRADE as it is right now. So as usual your wrong AGAIN. But thanks for the attention!!!
Alll that just for little 'ol me!!! In case you want to check it out...my answers were :
Disagree on the the top 5 (personal issues)...then...Agree, maybe, agree, agree, agree..on the second block, 'economic issues. So do please stop insulting me and calling me a liberal. You found the test, I took it. CONSERVATIVE. Thats me. Thanks for the chance to prove it. Have a nice day

Daniaml:
Do you not support free trade or free trade agreements? There's a big difference between the two. For example, I support free trade but not free trade agreements. Just wanted to get your take on it.
Thanks,
Eleanor

Eleanor;
I completey support FREE TRADE. It's the NAFTA type of 'agreements' that that no longer allow FREE TRADE to be what it should be. Thanks for helpping me clarify that!

I'm exactly the same as you Lucente.

Eleanor, Danimal,

Could one of you please explain this support of free trade and opposition to free-trade agreements. Maybe I am not understanding. As I said in this comment, NAFTA has actually resulted in a slight job increase in the United States and that most legitimate, non-biased studies found that NAFTA has not harmed the United States.

Texnofobiz,

I am always happy to find another libertarian. I don't understand why more people are not pro-liberty.

~tjl~

Lucente,
The reason I oppose free trade agreements is mainly due to tangling alliances, which our founding fathers warned against. I have a degree in international economics and understand specialization and free trade, and agree with them as well. Therefore, I am not opposing the effects of free trade agreements on jobs and wages here in the US. That is not the reason for my opposition. I oppose them because I believe it is a conflict of resource interests.
Hope that clarifies it for you.
Below is an article regarding Ron Paul's views on free trade. I agree with his view on the matter.
Eleanor
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer. The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July.

I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you firsthand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.

The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free.

CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.

CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade

TOM
I know you only accept data that supports your views, and to you everything else is tainted in some way or another, but I will try to explain this as simply as I can, so you mat get some understanding of my position. Just as you tryed wrongly to call me a liberal, which by taking your little test showed I was about as far RIGHT as one can be. (and proud of it thank you)

Why such divergent views? NAFTA was a radical experiment - never before had a merger of three nations with such radically different levels of development been attempted. Plus, until NAFTA, “trade” agreements only dealt with cutting tariffs and lifting quotas to set the terms of trade in goods between countries. But NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws - regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils.

NAFTA requires limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in our grocery stores; new patent rules that raised medicine prices; constraints on your local government’s ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries; and elimination of preferences for spending your tax dollars on U.S.-made products or locally-grown food. In fact, calling NAFTA a “trade” agreement is misleading, NAFTA is really an investment agreement. Its core provisions grant foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care.

Remarkably, many of NAFTA’s most passionate boosters in Congress and among economists never read the agreement. They made their pie-in-the-sky promises of NAFTA benefits based on trade theory and ideological prejudice for anything with the term “free trade” attached to it.

Now, over a decade later, the time for conjecture and promises is over: the data are in and they clearly show the damage NAFTA has wrought for millions of people in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Thankfully, the failed NAFTA model - a watered down version of which is also contained in the World Trade Organization (WTO) - is merely one among many options.
The fact that ANY people have been HURT by NAFTA, (by your own admission it has hurt Mexico) is good enough reason to toss it out. That increase in jobs you so proudly hale are smoke and mirrors. Low paying service jobs and Wallmart. Those are what NAFTA has brought us in return for thwe 3 plus million HIGH paying jobs we have lost.

Eleanor,

Thank you for clarifying that. Then we are in agreement. I agree that treaties are not necessary for free trade. What peaceable people do is no business of government.

Usually, though, when people oppose NAFTA, such as Danimal, they are doing so because they think it was a bad deal for the U.S. and they would prefer trade restrictions rather than free trade.

~tjl~

Danimal,

First, you clearly know nothing about what I accept or don't accept. I would not host a blog if I were not interested in others' opinions. Free, open and public debate is one of the cornerstones of a free society and I am honored to be a player in that.

Second, if you are going to copy something from Public Citizen, a left-wing, socialist, anti-free trade group, you should at least attribute your source. Otherwise, it is plagiarism.

That being said, you are not as far right as you can get. You admittedly oppose free trade and you support gun-control. Those are not conservative positions no matter how much you protest otherwise. Apparently you are conservative only when it suits you.

~tjl~

First, you clearly don't accept your own offered test for political allignment. So I know a little. Second, When I entered the info from Public Citizen, I assumed it would have copied the entire page I paisted on here. My bad, however if you had an EDIT button on here, I would have added it. AND third, I oppose FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS, that is what I said and continue to say. As far as the gun control, I asked you once and you chose to NOT answer...Have you never, in your study of LAW, found a case, (thousands I suspect) where the very FACT that a gun was registered, led directly to solving a case of murder, attempted murder, robbery etc?
What say you?

Tom, Like you said. NAFTA has caused more harm to Mexico than to the USA. OK. Like I said. That it caused harm to ANYONE, ( and I believe it harms the USA and Canada too), is enough reason to toss it out.
Now, are we clear on that yet?

Danimal,
I do agree with Tom on this matter but I understand your reasoning. In theory, gun registration wouldn't be a bad idea. However, history shows us that power corrups and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The United States is not exempt to this philosophy. Throughout history, which repeats itself, whenever a government enforces or mandates gun registration, for societies safety, it eventually leads to gun confiscation. That's where Tom and I are coming from.
Really, your thoughts on this matter make sense, however, history shows us that once a society gives us up liberty for security, you get neither.
Eleanor

"What's wrong with libertarianism"
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

Dan,
Please explain your quote, in your terms.
Thanks,
Eleanor

Danimal,

I certainly do accept the test for political alignment. However, as you admitted, you are only 90 percent conservative. As I keep saying, gun control is a LIBERAL belief. Opposition to free trade, as your first comments on the subject indicate (before Eleanor clarified your thinking) is a LIBERAL belief. I don’t know why that bothers you. If you have liberal beliefs, that is OK. But don’t try to hide from them.

Second, there is an edit button, but it apparently only works for registered users who are logged on because if it worked for non-registered users, anyone would be able to edit any post. That would not be good.

Third, as far as gun control goes, why would you want to make it easier for government to enslave the people? That makes no sense. The idea behind the right to bear arms is as a check on the government. I would rather a murderer go free than have the government be able to track the ownership of every gun. I know it seems unlikely at this point in time, but you have to take the long view. What happens when the government becomes totalitarian (we move toward it all the time)? Or what if the U.S. is, at some time in the future after all these liberal policies continue to weaken us, is invaded by a foreign country? Do you really want those people to know where the guns are?

And, in reality, gun registration does not help law enforcement. The only time that works is if the murderer registers the gun (most are stolen or unregistered) and then leaves it at the scene of the crime. Other forensic tools, such as ballistic tests, are much more effective. And, to answer your question, while I am sure there are such cases, I have never in law school or my two decades of newspaper reporting read a case where gun registration solved the crime.

As far as NAFTA is concerned, I support free trade and if it takes a free-trade agreement to get it done, then I’ll live with that compromise. I would much rather have free trade with an agreement that can be improved later, than no free trade at all. Same with concealed carry permits. I am opposed to requiring permits to exercise my God-given natural right to carry a gun. However, I have a permit and would rather a permit system exist than no ability to legally carry at all. Our liberty was taken away slowly over a period of years and we are going to have to win it back incrementally over a period of years. I consider it progress.

~tjl~

Eleanor,

Well said. Read her post Danimal. She is exactly right.

~tjl~

Dan,

As Eleanor said, I would like to hear your explanation on that quotation as well. I have not researched it, but I suspect, if Lincoln even said that, it was certainly taken out of context.

~tjl~

Well, then I guess I am 10% liberal. And the 2 ACSO's I asked and 3 LPD's I spoke to ALL 5 out of 5 believe that registration of weapons is a VERY good tool.
And I have NO opposition to free trade. Its the FAFTA style FORCED agreements that cause the damage, as you yourself noted.
So where is the 'edit button'? I am sure I registered..and I must be logged on, because I can read and write in here. ( funny how you want REGISTRATION for blogging, and don't want it for weapons. I personaly wish everyone had 2 or 3 guns, but I want them numbered and known. The right to bear arms as writen was intended for a malitia, for checks and balances. But I am not a constitutional expert, thats my understanding.
And I find it hard to believe that you would RATHER someone shot a member of your familly, tossed the gun in the bushes on hi/her way out, but the gun could not be tracked because it was never registered. True, it could be a THUG who would never register a gun, but also true, it could have been a nieghbor that went nuts or got angry with you or someone else.
Now I do agree that LIBERAL policies are at the root of most of the losses of freedom in the USA, and that they cause GREAT misunderstanding abroad also. And I do agree we need to win some of it back. Progress is good....but it can't just be a free-for-all. Don't like the LAWS, change them. The fact is wether we like it or not...for the most part, 'majority rules' dont work as well as we think. That too has been hi-jacked by BIG GOVERNMENT and liberal policies.

Eleanor, OK...its a thought to ponder.

Danimal,

The edit button should be on the bottom of your post to the right of the date and time.

Asking cops if guns should be registered is like asking Jews if America should support Israel. Using your logic, why not just implant chips in everyone so the government can track us all just to fight crime? We would be safer. (And registration for blogging is voluntary.)

What I am saying is that there are more important things than safety or making it easier for the cops to do their jobs. Recall Patrick Henry’s speech. He would prefer death to living in a country where his liberties were trampled on.

But, there is hope for you if you agree with the idea that liberals are the root of all evil.

~tjl~

HUmmmmmmm. Well, I want to get my dog a chip so he could be found by GPS if he ever got stolen. But then he is a house dog, and people don't try to take Boxers to often. However, in this day and age, I would consider a chip for my kids if I had any young ones. But thats just me.
Huoh, we agreed again. Mutual distrust for liberals. I will just be damned!!!

Consider a chip for your kids? Oh my!!!!What have we come to?
Danimal, have you ever watched "America, Freedom to Fascism"? If not, you can watch it on google video. This film will change your mind on a lot of things. It changed my life.
Eleanor

Yea, a chip, like a little beeper. You hit the button, the kid beeps and his eyes blink twice.
You could always find them that way. ....There are PRIVATE companies out there now that offer ID chips, with GPS, to find lost or kidnaped children. Grown-ups can get them too.
You have to admit, even Amber alerts are not to effective.

How about people just watch their kids? I'm not giving up my liberty for someone's safety, let alone mine. But don't worry all, sooner or later we will all be chipped.
As a side note, these private companies get HUGE tax breaks for this R&D and for the manufacturing and sales of these "chips". Plus, you have to look into who the shareholders of the company are. Eventually, you find out that these "private" companies aren't so "private". Something for you to look into. BTW, I know this first hand by my own independent investigation....so this is not speculation.
Eleanor

Ahaaa...well, I never lost kid either. People need to raise their kids, like we used to.
BTW, do you use a cell phone? FYI...you are already "CHIPED"!!! They can be traced easier than land lines!!!

And...they can hear everything you are saying through the microphone of your cell phone. (even when they are off).
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/07/18/the-fbi-can-eavesdrop-on-you-even-when-your-cell-phone-is-turned-off.aspx

I love technology and what it promises, but along with these advances is potential for abuse. We should remain ever vigilant.