I took a test on BarackObamaTest.com and it appears that I DISAGREED with the Barack Obama position on 41 of the 48 test questions (whew). This means I disagree with the Obama position 85% of the time. But I have a few problems with some of the questions:
- Q: Proponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge inAlaska point out that drilling could cover an area that covers 2,000 ofthe total 19 million acres that make up ANWR. Should the U.S. begindrilling in ANWR even if we won't realize the potential benefit forseveral more years?
- I answered "Yes" because they didn't have an option for, "Showme where the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to regulatedrilling (or any other area of the free market)."
- Q: "How do you feel about increased drilling for oil and natural gasoffshore in U.S. waters? Do you favor or oppose increased offshoredrilling?"
- I answered "Favor" because they didn't have an option for, "Show mewhere the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to regulatedrilling (or any other area of the free market)."
- Q: Please consider the two statements below and choose which one agree with:
- A. There needs to be new and tougher gun control laws to help in the fight against gun crime.
- B. There are enough laws on the books, what is needed is better enforcement of current gun control laws.
- I answered "B" because they didn't have an option for, "Let's repeal some or all of the 20,000 laws on the books!"
- Furthermore, B. isn't really that good. If we were thinkingstrategically, and I could only choose A and B, answer A would be better becauseadding many many more laws means all laws are harder to enforce, bogging down the whole process, but I realize that's really just stupid.
- Q: Should someone who is not a U.S. citizen, being held under suspicion of terrorism, be afforded Constitutional rights?
- I answered "No" because they didn't have an option for, "There is no such thing as a Constitutional right, so stop using that stupid phrase. The Constitution is designed to restrain government and does not grant rights to individuals. Obviously, by flipping it around, government is now able to abuse the restrictions clearly set forth therein. We even got people tricked into thinking we should amend State and the US Constitutions to restrict the definition of marriage, which is stupid because these documents restrict government, not individuals."
- Q: Should the U.S. negotiate with Iran without preconditions?
- I answered, "Yes" because they didn't have an option for, "'Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none," as Thomas Jefferson recommended. I realize this is one of the few times where my answer agrees with Obama. This is probably the only thing Jefferson and Obama agree on, although I think Obama is lying.
- Q: If American deaths in Iraq are greatly reduced and stability hasreturned to the Iraqi government, should American troops withdraw in 18months, or should they withdraw gradually over a longer timeframe?
- I answered, "Withdraw in 18 months" because they didn't have an option for "Leave now like the Iraqi people want."
- The entire "Social Values" section is something the Federal Government should leave to the people to decide on their own or leave to the several states and has little or no bearing on picking a president, from the standpoint of signing legalization or setting administrative policy.
- For instance, Q: Should America's laws be written following Judeo-Christian values orshould America be an entirely secular society, devoid of any decisionsbased upon Judeo-Christian moral values?
- I answered, "Judeo-Christian" even though I don't believe "Judeo" should even be in there (show me even one "Judeo" founding father) and because there wasn't an option for, "The more religiously informed the law, the more local the law should be, such that federal should be the least religiously informed while states can be perhaps more religiously informed, followed by municipalities and small localities being the most religiously informed, followed by local church government which is only religiously informed."
Overall, this test made me sick. The real purpose is to sell some book (not that there's anything wrong with that). Even the question of the "leftness" or "rightness" of the Supreme Court was difficult for me to take a position due to the incomplete nature of the answers offered. There's more than just "left" and "right." There's "up" and "down." It seems like the only to the federal government is to subsidize it orban it when in reality, there should be a "take no position" option.
I recommend the following test to understand what I mean about "up/down" in addition to "left/right": World's Smallest Pollitical Quiz
No comments:
Post a Comment