Liberal Blogger Quiz

Bunker Mulligan pointed to an informal survey at Right Wing News being cast out to “Lefty Bloggers” (I think that’s me) asking them yes/no answers to see just how “lefty” they really are.

I’m willing to take the “challenge” as it were… so here goes. It’s formulated like one of those “You are ____ if you score ___ on this quiz” emails.

NOTE: Any questions that refer directly to, or require being an American Citizen I will not answer directly, as I’m Canadian… however, I will put my “If I were American” answer in brackets ().

I scored a “4”… which apparently means I’m OK.

Click to see the rest.

  1. Do you think a significant percentage of prominent Republicans would secretly like to see the US become a theocracy?
  2. No

  3. Do you believe it was a mistake to go to war in Afghanistan?
  4. No

  5. In your opinion, is it a myth that American soldiers were spit on when they returned from Vietnam?
  6. No

  7. Michael Moore’s distribution group, Front Row Entertainment, received help marketing “Fahrenheit 9/11” in Lebanon from the terrorist group Hezbollah. Do you believe that was appropriate?
  8. No

  9. Do you think you can be a patriotic American and support Iraq’s anti-occupation resistance?
  10. (Yes) A difficult question because it is geared towards forcing the respondant to say you support the troops/America.. and thus everything that is happening in Iraq, of you don’t, and for that your are a traitor. That doesn’t fly with me. I would support the troops as much as possible but rail against the government for putting them in an absolutely unacceptable situation. The “with us or against us” mantra is dangerous and counter-productive.

  11. Do you think there is a significant chance that the capture of Saddam Hussein was timed to help George Bush politically?
  12. No

  13. In your opinion, is there a significant chance that Diebold is rigging elections in order to help the GOP?
  14. No

  15. Is George Bush more “evil” than Saddam Hussein?
  16. No Comment: More Dangerous than Saddam? Absolutely.

  17. In your opinion, is there a significant chance that Republicans rigged some of the Senate races in 2002?
  18. No

  19. Was Ingrid Newkirk right when she said, “There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all mammals”?
  20. No

  21. Is there any nation in the world that’s more of a force for good than the United States?
  22. Yes Comment — Yes what the US has done for the victims of the Tsunamis, and other humanitarian missions is second-to-none. But the number of innocent lives lost due to misguided US military actions is far too great to hold up the US as a “force for good” across the board.

  23. In your opinion, is the US a “stingy” country?
  24. No

  25. Is there a significant chance that America will become a fascist state in let’s say the next 10 years?
  26. No

  27. Do you think there’s a significant possibility that liberals will be rounded up and put into some sort of camps in let’s say the next 10 years?
  28. No

  29. Is America an imperialist nation in your opinion?
  30. Yes Comment — At the moment and in the forseeable future.

  31. Do you think “losing” in Vietnam was good for America?
  32. No

  33. Are you sometimes ashamed to be an American?
  34. (Yes) Comment — I certainly would be if I were an American…

  35. Do you think it’s wrong for the President to put the welfare of Americans ahead of the welfare of people in other countries?
  36. No Comment — Within Reason.

  37. Do you see significant, noteworthy, parallels between America and Nazi Germany?
  38. No

  39. In your opinion, was Iraq primarily a “war for oil”?
  40. Yes Comment — What other reason is left?

  41. What about Afghanistan? Was that primarily a “war for oil” as well?
  42. No

  43. Do you think it’s likely a draft will be declared by the end of George Bush’s term?
  44. No

  45. Do you think Iraq was preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place?
  46. No Comment — Though I’m sure the President just wanted a “valid” reason to do it.

  47. In your opinion, is sleep deprivation a form of torture?
  48. No

  49. Would you prefer that we lose in Iraq?
  50. No

  51. Do you believe anyone who goes to Afghanistan or Iraq as a soldier is fighting for an evil cause under an evil commander in chief?
  52. No Comment — Soldiers don’t have a choice where they go. And I would rather a soldier that wanted to be there and believed in the cause than someone who was unsure or without conviction.

  53. Was Michael Moore correct when he said, “There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie?”
  54. No

  55. Is there in your opinion a significant chance that the Bush administration either was behind 9/11 or knew it was coming and allowed it to happened?
  56. No

  57. Do you think there is a significant possibility that the Bush administration had a hand in Paul Wellstone’s death?
  58. No (I don’t know the details of this case… but I chose not to subscribe to most conspiracy theories.

  59. Do you believe that somebody rigged the vote in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election?
  60. No

  61. In your opinion, do you think there is a significant chance that the Bush administration was behind the anthrax letters that were mailed out to some members of the media and US Senate?
  62. No

  63. Had George Bush lost the election, do you believe there was a significant chance Republicans would have thrown a coup?
  64. No

  65. Do you believe there’s a significant chance that Karl Rove or someone else in the Bush administration had something to do with the last minute appearance of the Bin Laden tape right before the Nov. 2nd election?
  66. No

  67. Do you believe comparisons of George Bush to Hitler are appropriate?
  68. No

  69. Do you think Communism could work if the right people were running it?
  70. No

  71. Do you believe that black Americans who support and vote Republican are betraying their race?
  72. No

  73. Do you think people who say Al-Qaeda doesn’t exist are right?
  74. No

  75. Are the insurgents in Iraq roughly comparable to Americans who fought against the British in your opinion?
  76. No (More like the Indians against the British)

  77. Do you believe Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur was correct when she said, “One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown”?
  78. No

  79. Do you believe there’s a significant chance that the US Government knows where Bin Laden is and is deliberately allowing him to remain free?
  80. No

11 replies on “Liberal Blogger Quiz”

  1. Hi. Interesting answers. I just posted this quiz (which I also saw on RWN where I saw your comment) on a debate on my site where there is another one as well. Please stop by and considering posting your answers to both quizes on my site for further debate!

  2. I think you have a pretty good grasp of reality. On #11, you didn’t answer the question. Which country is more of a force for good. And I must say, there have been fewer innocent lives lost since 2003 in Iraq than any single year previous.

    #20–Plenty of other reasons. In fact, you’ve read what I posted on the subject.

    On the subject of #5, I have to tell you that the soldiers believe in what they are doing. So, it is impossible to say you support them without supporting what they do. I understand what you mean in your answer, but it really doesn’t fit. It is more like you pity them their task rather than supporting it.

  3. I can’t call a country a “force for good” when they go around initiated major wars against other countries, no matter what was already happening in that country.

    War cannot be a context for humanitarian aid… it causes far more hunmanitarian disasters than it solves. Thus my answer…

    Can I name a single country that is more of a “Force for Good” in the world. No. That’s because in “reality” there is no “good guy” and “bad guy”. It is far too simplistic a way of looking at a very complicated question. It goes back to the “us vs. them” mantra that is more and more part of the problem rather than the solution.

    20: The other reasons you submitted are, again, untenable. Saddam had absolutely no links to Al-Quaeda/Global Terrorism… he did not carry out 9/11… he did not harbour any terrorists in his borders (the Al-Aqsa group was in Kurdish controlled territory).

    The only solid, obvious, reality-based reason was oil and influence. America recognized that it wanted to be out of Saudi Arabia because the security situation was declining. France and Germany and Russia all had huge interests in Iraq and wanted to keep it that way. Thus their opposition to the war. The US Administration used 9/11 Bin Laden and the lack of proof of WMD as a pretext to invade.

    The only other “reason” was the humanitarian one… and that only surfaced in the policy-speak in 2003… long after it became apparent that they weren’t going to win the WMD or Terrorism debates.

    And on the troops.. sure, I pity them. And I’ll take the point that the soldiers believe in what they are doing. That said.. the fact remains that they have absolutely no choice as to where they go so it is invalid for me to direct my protests against the soldiers. I recognize that whatever my views, they need to do their job and succeed. But at the same time it is my duty to make my view known to those who pull the soldiers strings. Only then will they be taken out of harms way when they shouldn’t be there.

  4. Pingback: Right Wing News
  5. Chris

    Well, you’ve certainly demonstrated that you are no left-wing moonbat 🙂 which does not surprise me. What does surprise me or actually puzzles me is the “war for oil” position. I hear that a lot but I don’t understand what it means, really. How will a war in Iraq give the US all the oil it wants or needs? especially if we leave and let them run their country which we will do in a few years, I’m sure. If we really wanted to go to war for oil, I’d suggest we take over China or something. They are the ones who are really making oil expensive. It’s a result of their wanting to join the industrialized world. And they are doing to at a phenomenal rate of growth. I’m not advocating taking over China – a silly idea but the emerging Asian nations will turn the world upside down soon enough. I’m just sorry I won’t be alive in 100 years to see how it all works out. China and India – the next century may very well belong to them.

    Anyway, you seem to be a fairly well balanced lefty much more rational than the guy whose cubicle is next to mine at the office. Heh.

  6. On the war for oil thing, I’m equally surprised that people sometimes can’t grasp why one would think so.

    Think of why wars start usually… resources, influence, power.

    Your point about China is, I think, not quite right. You’re talking about stopping a possible threat by confronting the threat rather than securing the resource.

    Wars are fought to secure resources and influence, it is rarely to directly confront a threat.

    The West has been fighting for control of Middle Eastern/North African oil for decades. First the British… then the French/Germans/Russians, now the US is making its’ move.

    Oil is what drives the economy of the West. Why do you think the US has had such a huge military presence in Saudi Arabia? After 9/11 the US wanted out of SA, for somewhat obvious reasons.

    When the Middle East is involved, oil is the driving factor, no matter what countries you are talking about. I simply can’t accept that the politics of the past 100 years has suddenly switched and now the West is in the Middle East because they’re truly concerned about the people.

    Sorry, I don’t buy that. Governments don’t go to war to save people. They go to war to advance their own interests. And that’s what Iraq is about, at this point Democracy would simply be a lucky side effect.

  7. Well, yes, your list of reasons for war is quite right. But I also wonder why we contributed so much to the rebuilding of Europe and Asia after WWII. Well, I don’t really wonder. I long ago realized that it was in our own best interests to do our best to stabilize important political and military populations of course. We benefited to the same extent that Germany and Japan when we assisted them in becoming economically stable (democracy is a key ingredient in this mix) and the world could go back to peace among men producing butter instead of guns and trading happily with each other. A rising tide lifts all boats.

    If the west depends on a stable middle-east in order to prosper (and now so do the emerging Asian economies), then I concede, it is about oil. I guess those who believe that intervening in the ME is unethical and immoral (if the end result is a secure energy source for industrialized peoples as well a peaceful (someday) ME), are prepared to live without oil or don’t care if the supply stays in friendly hands. Americans are a pragmatic people. We do good sometimes just for the good but more often we do good because it is good for us. However, we share our good results with whoever wants to partner with us as long as they don’t threaten us and undermine our efforts.

    Every politician in the world is well aware of the importance of ME oil. If they didn’t have it or it were held up for blackmail, I’m sure many countries would be spending a lot of the GNP on guns in order to get that precious oil. (Not Canada? Not Europe? Guess again.) But Instead of getting left-wing, liberal hands dirty, let the US do it and then complain that she is a war-mongering, power-mad, militant nation out to stomp on the weak and helpless.

    Anway, just a couple of weeks until the Iraqi election. One more milestone in the history of Iraqi democracy. I predict the election will be a great success and the Iraqis will take heart that they defied the few among them who would kill and maim them just to return to another dictorship.

  8. Do you really think that no war is justified or that no war can be humanitarian? Do you beleive, as Ghandi did, that we should not have entered WWII?

    That is the one thing you have said that does seem like a leftwing-moonbat position, no offense.

    Is it better to allow a brutal, dictatorial, bloody, evil regime to kill many more innocents than would die in the war and in addition oppress, rape and torure so many times more, than to engage in a war to stop it?

  9. Chris, I make a distinction between “leftists” and “liberals”, and you fit into the latter group. It is actually possible for a conservative/libertarian like myself and a liberal (as the word is currently used) to have a discussion. When either extreme of right or left gets involved, discussion becomes debate, and no issue can be resolved.

  10. Bunker:

    Indeed… when extreme views are involved it’s impossible to have a sensible discussion. One of the underlying goals that I had in mind when I started this blog was to hopefully influence some of the more extreme on the Right to soften their views. It’s probably too ambitious or maybe pretentious a goal to really achieve… but it’s a goal none the less.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from Murkyview

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading