Political Compass scores.

[Aetheras]

ah now your just lieing, hitler was, in that website chart, just about top right
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test look at it again please

I'm not lying, I was mistaken. There's a difference. You were right, I was wrong. But he wasn't exactly totally free market.

then im sorry, i was mistaken too

[No Names Left Damn It]

that's rediculious, i think its very clear what im saying and i think your saying that so you don't have to give a decent reply

But I don't think it's clear what you're saying, I'm finding it extremely hard to discern any real message in your post, and it's all spelt wrong as well.

[Angleter]

I think Britain needs to save its sovereignty from the EU,

Totally agree.

put more money into an organisation than you get out

Source?

(I am, for the same reason, anti-Union- for 'British money funds Riga development grant' see 'English money funds Glasgow development grant')

Same. The Welsh NHS, which is even more socialised than ours, is run partly off English money.

Also, we can preserve the trade system by obtaining a special economic trading link with the EU (like Switzerland).

So you're an EFTA fan, then?

What interests me is that for a relative leftist you did not mention my wish to end government aid to Africa and to abolish the NHS.

Relative leftist? I consider myself centrist, and by NSG standards I'm a raving fascist.

Most left-wingers would have posted a two-page long diatribe about how it's 'our NHS' and how I 'mustn't have a heart, not wanting to save Africa'.

I'm not a leftie, how dare you accuse me of such things I'm an NHS supporter, I see it as a team spirit thing, everyone looking out for each other and all that, but foreign aid to Africa is a total waste of time and money, and could quite easily make the situation worse. See warlords and the like.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#State_by_state_analysis

I would prefer for Britain to be an associate member of the EU and a member of the EEA.

Congratulations, you're the first centrist left of Zapatero!

There's no team spirit in the NHS. Only one institution is 'looking out for you', and that's the State, and they will decide what is best for you in the spirit of 'looking out for you'. Also, glad to see that you're anti-aid. I read this article by Dambisa Moyo a few months back and that's what made me realise how stupid the whole idea of giving President Genocido billions of dollars a year.

[Aetheras]

that's rediculious, i think its very clear what im saying and i think your saying that so you don't have to give a decent reply

But I don't think it's clear what you're saying, I'm finding it extremely hard to discern any real message in your post, and it's all spelt wrong as well.

hm i may have rushed it
basically im saying that i was suprised to find that obvious atheist to be only slightly communist, i generally find atheists, at least the ones i know, to be almost always communist liberals, while it is the more religious folks who tend to be capitalist and conservitive

[Aetheras]

by the way people, that political compass ite says ''The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party''
this is complete BS folks, ayn rand was very anti anarchist, she dispised the thought of it, there is no such thing as right wing anarchism or anarcho capitalism, anarchism is not against just the government, but capitalism aswell, its a package offer, you cant just pick what you like about anarchism and throw in the capitalist part because you cant give it up, if you do this your libertarian or an objectivist, there is NO such thing as anarcho capitalism, end of story

[No Names Left Damn It]

hm i may have rushed it
basically im saying that i was suprised to find that obvious atheist to be only slightly communist, i generally find atheists, at least the ones i know, to be almost always communist liberals, while it is the more religious folks who tend to be capitalist and conservitive

Oh right. I'm assuming you're American, right? Atheists over there tend to be liberal, yes, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're all communists.

[Pope Joan]

I am between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai lama.

That feels like a comfy place to be, Liberal Libertarian.

[Aetheras]

hm i may have rushed it
basically im saying that i was suprised to find that obvious atheist to be only slightly communist, i generally find atheists, at least the ones i know, to be almost always communist liberals, while it is the more religious folks who tend to be capitalist and conservitive

Oh right. I'm assuming you're American, right? Atheists over there tend to be liberal, yes, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're all communists.

im irish actually, and all the atheists i know here are very extreme liberals, almost all communist, maybe they dont even realize, most people when they hear the word ''communism'' think of dictatorships where there not allowed to think, but when they tell me there for commen ownership of the means of productions and there anti capitalist i tell them ''well, then your communist'' there usual response is ''what?! no i am not!''

[No Names Left Damn It]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#State_by_state_analysis

I would prefer for Britain to be an associate member of the EU and a member of the EEA.

After reading that, yeah, you're right. We need to leave.

Congratulations, you're the first centrist left of Zapatero!

I'm just to the right of the centre mark on the political compass, and I believe in a free-ish market that isn't allowed to run rampant. That's centrist, is it not?

here's no team spirit in the NHS. Only one institution is 'looking out for you', and that's the State, and they will decide what is best for you in the spirit of 'looking out for you'.

I disagree.

Also, glad to see that you're anti-aid. I read this article by Dambisa Moyo a few months back and that's what made me realise how stupid the whole idea of giving President Genocido billions of dollars a year.

I've always thought it was stupid. Throwing money at a corrupt or lazy bastard gives him no incentive to get his own economy up and running, and throwing money at a genocidal or murderous bastard is equivalent to being a mass murderer yourself, as you are fuelling him.

[No Names Left Damn It]

im irish actually,

That explains the bad spelling and the smell of potatoes.

and all the atheists i know here are very extreme liberals,

Ireland's a very religious country, is it not? So obviously the Catholic church supporters will be conservative, therefore making atheists more likely to be leftist.

[Angleter]

The NHS is not so wonderful. It is the 17th best out of 29 European nations (behind ESTONIA), and when its quality is compared to the amount it costs you, it's 26th, behind BULGARIA and LATVIA.

Source?

It also gives the government a mandate to interfere in people's personal lives (see the massive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes

As a smoker and somewhat heavy drinker myself, I honestly don't mind it.

and the potential massive taxes on junk food for an example

Going to make any other hypothetical duties on goods while you're at it? Subsidies on bicycle helmets funded by the crushing of Land Rovers maybe?

thus giving rise to the whole 'Mother State knows what's best for you' charade where the government 'encourages a healthy lifestyle' for us.

It's largely sound advice.

Also about Scotland- if it's so rich due to oil then why do the oil-less English have to subsidise the place?

Because Scotland doesn't collect its own taxes.

Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-485064/Healthcare-Estonia-better-Britains-NHS-says-damning-report.html
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/media/Index_2007_matrix.pdf

Sound advice backed up by taxes. You might not mind it, but your bank balance will. Also, about the helmets thing- don't put it past them.

So Scotland's tax money goes to Westminster, and Westminster gives more back. Still no explanation.

[The North Papal States]

Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.97

Wow. I've become like, twenty times more Conservative. Stupid Obama making me angry at Democrats.

[Pope Joan]

im irish actually,

That explains the bad spelling and the smell of potatoes.

and all the atheists i know here are very extreme liberals,

Ireland's a very religious country, is it not? So obviously the Catholic church supporters will be conservative, therefore making atheists more likely to be leftist.

the Berrigan Brothers are irish religious leftists

hell, maybe the majority of Irish catholics are leftists

nothing like being downtrodden for centuries to raise your consciousness

http://books.google.com/books?id=fpVOVD ... t&resnum=2

http://www.bolshevik.org/mb/3ireland.htm

http://goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com ... ftist.html

[Aetheras]

im irish actually,

That explains the bad spelling and the smell of potatoes.

and all the atheists i know here are very extreme liberals,

Ireland's a very religious country, is it not? So obviously the Catholic church supporters will be conservative, therefore making atheists more likely to be leftist.

thats an inaccurate stereotype, the vast majority of irish do believe in god, almost of of us, if asked will say ''of course'' but thats about it, hardly any irish take it serously, almost everyonei s catholic, but very few care, very care actually think of god often of consider it importent, expecially in the west, and i think america is far more religous, there may be more atheists there per 100 people but those who are religious are religious, and actually take it seriously and go to church etc

[Aetheras]

im irish actually,

That explains the bad spelling and the smell of potatoes.

and all the atheists i know here are very extreme liberals,

Ireland's a very religious country, is it not? So obviously the Catholic church supporters will be conservative, therefore making atheists more likely to be leftist.

the Berrigan Brothers are irish religious leftists

hell, maybe the majority of Irish catholics are leftists

nothing like being downtrodden for centuries to raise your consciousness

http://books.google.com/books?id=fpVOVD ... t&resnum=2

http://www.bolshevik.org/mb/3ireland.htm

http://goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com ... ftist.html

now that i think of it our political parties are for the most part, lberal, even fianna fail, our largest party, which considers itself conservitive, would be considered by most outsiders to be liberal, our standerds are abit differents, the american idea of conservitive is very very extreme to us, while there democratic party is moderate conservitive to us, while when it comes to the green pary, which most outsiders would see as extreme liberal, is only moderately liberal to most i know

[Aetheras]

infact, even our terrorist are extreme liberals, the IRA are a marxist/communist group, despite the general idea that they are extreme right wing

[Yootopia]

Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-485064/Healthcare-Estonia-better-Britains-NHS-says-damning-report.html
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/media/Index_2007_matrix.pdf

You have any idea how they actually worked the scores out?

Because from looking at the table in that PDF, we seem to be as good as or better than the average in almost all of the categories, and still come out worse.

So Scotland's tax money goes to Westminster, and Westminster gives more back. Still no explanation.

No, Scotland's tax money goes to Westminster, and Westminster gives less per-capita back. Let's put it this way for you - last year, around £50bn in tax revenues came from the oil companies, such as BP, Shell etc., a lot of which came from the Scottish oil fields. If Scotland was its own country, with a population of five million and change citizens, that would be £10,000 in tax revenue, per head. Add into that the gas fields, tourism and industrial revenues in Scotland and that's something more like £20k. In tax. Let alone added on to what their private citizens earn.

The union benefits Wales the most, since it's still an utter backwater, then the English, then the Scottish, although the union does still make sense for Scotland in terms of diplomatic and military concerns etc.

[Yootopia]

infact, even our terrorist are extreme liberals, the IRA are a marxist/communist group, despite the general idea that they are extreme right wing

I think you'll find there were differences between IRA groups. The Provos were largely marxists, aye, but there were more conservative elements too.

[Robarya]

Are you seriously arguing that the invasion of the USSR was a rational decision? This is universally accepted as the most stupid war time decision in history. That someone can even attempt to justify it boggles the mind. Let's look at this rationally. You have specifically made peace with the USSR in order to avoid a two front war that destroyed Germany during the last world war. You are cuttently still dealing with the British, very much a threat. At this point, the US joining in is not forseeable. To the east you have a ginormous country with a huge army with great natural defenses (ie. winter) that you are currently in an alliance with. An uneasy alliance, yes, but still an alliance. You're still in the process of pacifying your occupied territories. You say invading the USSR was in order to stop it from joining the war against Hitler to help Britain. How exactly does invading an allied a country stop it from fighting you?

The reason it is viewed as a stupid decision is because Germany lost; in other words, it is afterwise nonsense that shouldn't be taken too seriously. Barbarossa was a rational decision, considering Adolf Hitler's goal was to establish Germany as a self-sufficient superpower dominating Europe. Had the goal merely been to remain content with what Germany already controlled, one could argue that it was an irrational decision, though, but that was not the case.

In the West there was no possibility of bringing Britain to its knees. In the East the Soviet Union was an emerging superpower, but still in poor shape. Barbarossa had lots of potential, given the Red Army's condition, while the German army was in excellent shape and was well-seasoned. Finishing off Britain was not an option, as Britain would have the advantage in a war of attrition due to having access to resources from all over the World, and with Russia getting sufficient time to prepare, they would be even more prepared for a war than they were in 1941.

The ultimate failure of Barbarossa stemmed from three things timing, supply, and division. Timing in that they did not complete the operation before the winter, supply in that they were not prepared for the winter and their lines had to stretch hundreds of miles, and division in the splitting of forces with one half going south towards the oil rich Urals and the other half diverted towards Stalingrad.

Timing in that they invaded during late summer/autumn in order to invade a country the size of the USSR? A small detail, yes. Supplies in that they didn't prepare for winter? Because of course they didn't see that coming. Divison in that they were spread out over the whole of Russia? Again, a small detail.

It was necessary to occupy large portions of the country. Germany's only shot of winning against the Russians would have been to occupy all of European Russia, hence denying the Russians manpower to fuel their armies. In Barbarossa this was quite successful, considering a large percentage of potential Russian manpower became locked up in German occupied territory, even though it wasn't enough to win the war.

All of these could easily have been avoided. He could have waited until spring. He could have equipped his troops for winter in the beginning. He could have given them proper supplies instead of relying on foraging, easily defeated by the USSR's slash and burn policy. Hell, he could not have invaded. There was no way Stalin would have declared war on Germany given a choice, whithout heavy backup. (ie, the US)

But then Roosevelt badly wanted to join the war in Europe, and Stalin had territorial ambitions, so this was certainly not an impossibility.

The ultimate blunder that Hitler made that did result in losing the whole shindig was the deceleration of war on the United States following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. With American supplies, fresh soldiers, and equipment the British were no longer feeling the pressure of attrition and could being large scale operations in North Africa and then Italy. With Italy out of the picture Germany had one more area to occupy spreading her already divided forces even further. All in all, Hitler was an incredible strategist as whole, there was just minute blunders that ended up costing him the war.

Because declaring war on the US, with Britain and the USSR still major threats was a "minute blunder." I agree with you on the effects of the US joining the war, but they could have so easily been avoided. The other major threat, the USSR could also have been avoided, as I pointed out before. All in all, Hitler was a godawful strategist as a whole, there were just several major blunders that ended up costing him the war.

[/quote]

I agree that the declaration of war on the United States was a major blunder. Roosevelt wanted to join the war in Europe as I stated above, but declaring a war requires popular support, and it would at the very least have been possible to delay the Americans from entering Europe, had Adolf Hitler not decided to support Japan. Not worrying about the American presence would have allowed the Germans to use a more defensive strategy on the eastern front, but with the Americans starting to ship soldiers to Europe, the German leadership more or less had to attempt winning the war in the east as fast as possible through gambles such as Kursk. And like I said earlier, since Adolf Hitler's ambition was to turn Germany into a superpower, it would have been irrational to not declare war on Russia sooner or later.

[Aetheras]

infact, even our terrorist are extreme liberals, the IRA are a marxist/communist group, despite the general idea that they are extreme right wing

I think you'll find there were differences between IRA groups. The Provos were largely marxists, aye, but there were more conservative elements too.

well thats why they split in the first lace, but the surrent incarnation of the IRA, the ''Real'' IRA have indeed called themselves socialist

[Yootopia]

well thats why they split in the first lace, but the surrent incarnation of the IRA, the ''Real'' IRA have indeed called themselves socialist

Who really cares about the Real IRA though?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

well thats why they split in the first lace, but the surrent incarnation of the IRA, the ''Real'' IRA have indeed called themselves socialist

Who really cares about the Real IRA though?

Someone with Fianna nostalgia, I'm sure.

[Aetheras]

I agree that the declaration of war on the United States was a major blunder. Roosevelt wanted to join the war in Europe as I stated above, but declaring a war requires popular support, and it would at the very least have been possible to delay the Americans from entering Europe, had Adolf Hitler not decided to support Japan. Not worrying about the American presence would have allowed the Germans to use a more defensive strategy on the eastern front, but with the Americans starting to ship soldiers to Europe, the German leadership more or less had to attempt winning the war in the east as fast as possible through gambles such as Kursk. And like I said earlier, since Adolf Hitler's ambition was to turn Germany into a superpower, it would have been irrational to not declare war on Russia sooner or later.

the americans had already being giving massive amounts of supplies to the allies, in my opinion, the russians won the war, the biggest blunder hitler made was making an enemy of stalin, but i know alot of americans hate to admit this but by the time they got involved we were already winning thanks to the soviets, i suppose it cause of that holhe cold war thing, they hate to admit the soviets did some good

[Aetheras]

well thats why they split in the first lace, but the surrent incarnation of the IRA, the ''Real'' IRA have indeed called themselves socialist

Who really cares about the Real IRA though?

im sure the families of the two british soldiers who were exucuted afew months ago care, im sure almost everyone in northern ireland cares and I CARE, 60 years of civil unrest and terrorism makes people, supprise supprise, CARE

[Angleter]

Actually England does worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_fo ... population.

Also the 'British' race does not exist. The English are a Germanic, Anglo-Saxon people, and the others (even the Cornish) are Celts. They have less reason to be together certainly than Germany and Austria, and even than the Scandinavian states.