|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
True enough. Compass, I think, has another strike against it. It merges foreign policy and domestic policy into a general category called "social." In actuality they are very seperable. Figures like Lyndon Johnson were economic and social liberals, but Johnson was a foreign policy hawk. The same was true of Roosevelt. It is only with McGovern that you saw dovishness aligned with liberals. On the flip side, while Bush is definately more hawkish, figures like Pat Buchanan, a social and fiscal conservative, side with dovishnesses conservative cousin isolationism. In light of the seperability of foreign policy I think it definately deserves an axis of its own on the graph. In other words, political compass should take the next logical step and make a three dimensional graph. That, plus a bit more realism in how they exavluate politicians, would go a long way towards yielding a more reliable political indicator.
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/posts/say/say_b3_p.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|