Perhaps it would be helpful if we all just declared our Myers-Briggs types? 

INTJ, FWIW.  Guaranteed to clash with ESTP/ESFJ types, regardless of party affiliation. ;}

ESFJ

ENTJ when I took this before. But now I'm ENFJ. Dunno what that means...

Marketing departments are generally heavy on the NF preference, because NFs are sociable and likable types who enjoy talking with other people about products and services, and thus they tend to gravitate to certain jobs.  NFs are the perfect cocktail party guests and make great middle and upper management types.

Because MB deals with preferences, traits are mutable over time.  That's one of the reasons many people take the test; to see areas of their personalities that perhaps need a bit more exercise.

Quickly took the test, some questions I had a hard time deciding how to answer.

ISFP

The Composer Artisan! Hey I like that. The example they use is Bob Dylan!

Hey I like that too!

Marching to the beat of a different drummer. check

I like Keirsey's assessment better than Dr. Butt's.

Ulyssess Grant, and Willian Harding are ISFP Presidents.

Hmmm..... don't like this, but am pretty sure it fits.

"the ISFP's Extraverted Thinking is at risk for a lack of context and proportion."

That was kind of fun, but I am not sure what it means, and if it changes anything! It is good to know I fit into a category of some category somewhere!

that the description of Inspector Guardian (ISTJ) is not terribly close to describing me, so I am not sure what to think of this test.

Well except for this paragraph:

These quiet, no-nonsense Guardians have a distaste for and distrust of fanciness in speech, dress, and living space. Their words tend to be simple and down-to-earth, not showy or high-flown; their clothes are often homespun and conservative rather than of the latest fashion; and their home and work environments are usually neat, orderly, and traditional, rather than up-to-date or luxurious. In their choice of personal property (cars, furnishings, jewelry, and so on) price and durability are just as important as comfort or appearance. Classics, antiques, and heirlooms are especially valued, having achieved a certain time-honored status-Inspectors prefer the old-fashioned to the newfangled every time. Even on vacation, Inspectors tend not to be attracted by exotic foods, beverages, or locales.

There is plenty of truth there. :)

does not take this diary as a personal attack of any kind.  I see he recommended the diary (thanks), so hopefully he understands that I respect his willingness to debate and contribute here.  I also don't believe he thinks all liberals are communists.  I do think his past played a role in creating how Ender views liberals. 

The thread here is very interesting, but not exactly what I wanted to get at.  I really did not want to 'psychoanalyze' as far as types as much as see how past experiences frame our perception.  Many poststructuralists and linguists have said that how we see is what we see.  Ender just happened to be the most obvious example of this assertion.  He seems like a really nice guy all around, except his political views of liberals always seemed off kilter.  Now it makes sense why he is adamantly anti-liberal.

It is more difficult to understand oneself than it is for others to project an image of oneself, so it is difficult to analyze myself in the same way, but here goes.

I think Ender and I are a lot alike in many ways.  We are the same age, and we are both products of two cultures (although my experience is not as dramatic as his).  Both of my grandmothers are from Germany and married American soldiers after WWII.  For that reason, the German culture and the military had a huge impact on my upbringing.  My mother would rather I had joined the military any day rather than attend college.  Somehow they do not make the military = Republican association common to the US frame of things.  My family (with the exception of my father) abhors Nazism, which, similar to, but opposite of, Ender, carries over to many things right-wing.  This reaction to the destruction of Germany helped shape me to the person I am now.

I, of course, created my own identity (whatever that means) by pursuing a career in academics rather than the military, but my work ethic and (party ethic at times) are both products of this upbringing.  I do not associate the right immediateyly with Nazis like some of my family does, but my ears perk up a bit faster than the common citizen when I hear we are again attacking another country or losing another right in the name of safety and nationalism.

  ENFJ

that most Democrats and even elected Democrats do not believe in communism. I do not believe that. I think you are making too much out of my childhood past. I left Russia when I was 13 and I did not analyze the political situation at the time. Sure, I felt distaste but I was not mature enough to care until later on.

When I became aware of politics around the age of 17, I was sufficiently Americanized to not bring my childhood experiences into what I decided was right and wrong.

I do believe that the Democratic party is a front for the Left with ulterior motives. The liberal base believes in the collectivist philosophy enough to accept and cheer the slippery slope towards full blown socialism and ultimately the full blown dictatorship of the brainless, uncreative, and the unproductive. Unfortunately a lot of the liberal ideology stems from agreement with one of the most dangerous quotes in the history of humankind: "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

The preference of focusing on group preferences and the need to make the "playing field level" over achievement and meritocracy is extremely worrying with the enventual goal of (the Left's dream) equality of results.

The denigration of the wealthy, the successful, the businessmen, the corporations, the productive is blatant (though usually excused with references to stolen or inherited wealth).

Yes, economics is what the most important issues are based on and where our liberties will be lost. The Left (not necessarily you guys personally, but definitely many liberals and many powerbrokers behind the scenes) is driven by the deep envy of the Doers, Achievers, Producers, Creators, Inventors - basically of those with Ability. Class warfare dominates their thinking and they rely on the support of the poor and the unimaginative middle class by painting them as victims of the "evil" Wealthy class.

The Democratic Party (sometimes unwittingly but usually very knowingly) are the enablers of the true socialists behind the scenes. Their pretense at support for capitalism speaks highly to the superior American character of respect for individualism, achievement and self-reliance for the blatant rejection of those values would backfire. Instead we are treated to the insidious but careful propaganda (that starts from childhood) of the common good, sharing, and altruism.

I could say a lot more but you can see where I am coming from. Most liberals are probably not aware of any of it and the above agenda feels natural to them. Others, like me, are shocked upon coming in contact with this agenda. I've seen behind the mask and it is frightening.

It has nothing to do with knowing individual liberals (and I know some at work) who are very fine human beings. There are good people in both conservative and liberal ideologies.

You should understand that my disagreement with liberalism is a lot more basic and deep than simple worries about some superficial planks of either parties. I will never trust any party of the Left because the core of the leftist ideology is alien to me.

Likewise, INTJ.

That the more you talk to individuals from the left, the less crazy they seem? You often talk about "the left" but adjust and point out that "I didn't mean YOU". At least consider that you are dealing with the stereotype rather than the reality to a certain extent.

despite some of the tone of my comments. So I don't take too many things as personal attacks or affronts unless I know the person and perfectly understand the intent. :)

You are offbase in thinking that living under Communism influenced me that much. I think Ayn Rand's books influenced my rather idealistic mind. Who said the Right does not have idealists? :) I think I don't really fit perfectly in any of the "conservative" (or libertarian) molds - which is why I prefer the RightWing label.

I do strive for the better future for humankind as most idealists do. My ideas on how to achieve it are very different from the Left's.

the secret oasis in Atlas Shrugged has probably captured my imagination the most out of all the utopian constructs :)

We get accused of wanting to give the terrorists cookies and dynamite while the right wants freedom and security against evil.

So tell me your priorities. What are the metrics of success? Because then we can actuall use prioritizations and weighting to understand the differences in opinion.

For example, you are was more interested in false negatives than false positives (innocents arrested and tortured vs guilty ones not caught). That's a fair difference and worth discussion. But when people talk about how the left wants to coddle terrorists it goes past an honest discussion of priorities and into the realm of demagoguery.

I must admit that at first glance I was inclined to compare the test with astrology.  Sixteen "signs" and all. But it can provide some insight into how differently people can interpret the world around them, and how they respond to different styles of communication. Useful in project managment when one has to get a disparate group of people hitched to the same wagon (and pulling in the same direction).

...

Personal responsibility.

Personal freedom.

Not having your kids pay your own debts.

freedom to communicate with others.

furthering yourself (via education).

Pursuit of happiness.

dislike of being dictated to, about most things.

personal choice.

I can't really use myself because I have libertarianistic tendencies on some stuff.

Personally responsibility and freedom fit in with the lefts view on healthcare.

... hold Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld personally responsible for the mess that is Iraq. And throw Afghanistan in there while you're at it.

And, oh, add the part about why you don't think any of the Republican House leadership is personally responsible for letting Foley act as a predator to underaged boys for the past five years when they knew what was going on.

I love how the so-called "Party of Personal Responsibility" fails to take personal responsibility for even a single one of this administartion's monumental f***-ups.

Pathetic.

the questions are awful.  No context or scenario to provide background.

you pay taxes. You get medicare.

Taxes too high? Tell the govt to stop mismanaging your money.

Why is that good? It gives employers the freedom to do business, which is good for society. Why else is that good. It means if an employee breaks his leg..... he can go to the hospital get it fixed and come back to work. That way you don't have to leave the guy with the broke leg out on the street cause no one has to take care of him.

It is kind of like stop lights. Your taxes at work. It saves lives. It is good for the economy. They keep order.  But they do restrisct your freedom. You MUST stop at the red light if you don't want to die in a car crash.

It works. It is called an unselfish society that governs itself well.

There is a very high probability that at one time or another everybody will incur medical costs that he or she won’t be able to pay for. With the current system the society as a whole chips in for the healthcare off all those who can’t afford it or choose not to get health insurance. Universal healthcare would lower the fees as the providers would not need to pad their costs to cover their non-paying patients.

People should be free from paying for healthcare of someone who does not want to participate in the universal system. For those who cannot afford healthcare we should provide otherwise we’d be no better than animals.

People also should be free to not participate in the universal system, provided they can deposit cash bail in escrow in the amount of the most expensive medical procedure they might require. The interest on the money would be added to the base bail amount to provide for raising cost of healthcare.

Tell me it’s not fair.

personal responsibility.  It's not.  It's "you got lucky to be born into the right family" or "you were unlucky enough to be born into poverty."  Anything else is dishonest.

The parents have worked their goddamn asses to be able to pass sizeable property and wealth to their children while the others accomplished nothing. To you it's like their labor means nothing. With your focus on the inheritance tax you deliberately erase history and record of achievement to be able to bash the children who have every damn right to their family's property to the property their parents busted their asses for, in part to provide for their children.

This whole "you got lucky" is revisionism for the sake of class warfare that your party is great at perpetuating. How convenient to forget how that money got there.

people who do not want to participate in the mass theft system  be required to prove something by putting up money on front? If they don't have (and can't get) the money when it comes time to pay for that operation then let them die. They chose their fate.

Tell me it's not fair.

in living in a society where people have to bribe the mob from killing them. I'd rather not pay it and keep a machine gun on the premises.

Only it's also:

A. Immoral

B. Inhuman

C. Illegal

your morality is not my morality.

What kind of morality allows another human being, that could otherwise be saved, to die?

thought out answers on all the possible issues. After 30 seconds of deliberating on the topic I've decided that while it is a necessary evil in our society (just like welfare because our people have been sucking on the free teat for too damn long) I would be against it in a perfect world.

If you crash into someone's car, it's your fault, you don't have insurance, and you can't pay you should either accept a lien placed on your assets and salary or go to jail.

Maximize the freedom and take responsibility for your own actions. In our world government takes care of all those pesky little personal responsibility things.

On that note I have to go to sleep.

that doesn't accept theft under the threat to your liberties as moral.

Live free or die.

agree that every human being has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without forfeiting the above upon succeeding. The amazing thing is that such an honest society was created without any sort of bribe requirements clause. It's ancient history nowadays. The mob has forgotten. Per you, we have to pay to keep the mob at bay.

ok now I really need to sleep.

one of the founders of classical liberalism (which conservatives like to claim as the foundation for conservatism), disagrees.  In Second Treatise of Government , there is a discussion regarding freedom, focusing on whether one has the right/freedom to take one's own life.  The discussion then turns to the moral responsibility of helping others out. Locke says this about helping another person out:

Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, liberty, health, limbs, or goods of another. (pg. 9) (bold my emphasis, italics original emphasis)

In other words, as long as you have the means, you are morally responsible for the lives of others less fortunate.

Unless the government arrests those who have no personal responsibility to make sure they can cover their accidents and pay the victims in full, before they actually cause any accidents (or drive anywhere) it does their victims no good.

Having mandatory liability insurance is a much smoother solution than incurring court and debt collection costs every time there is an accident with irresponsible person. Who needs that sh*t?

at least consider that you're talking about a particular set of standards that are unevenly applied.  I don't think anyone on the left is really in favor of forced distribution of wealth any more than anyone on the right is in favor of complete deregulation.  Okay, we both have our fringe groups, but you get the idea.

What I do tend to find difficult to swallow is this notion that personal responsibility comes completely free of context: that is, we laud entrepreneurs who build successful businesses and denigrate people who can't hold down jobs.  In an otherwise evenly distributed world, that might make more sense, but when the first of those examples started with his parents' seed money and hasn't had to look for a job in his life, and the second of those has been living in really dire economic straits since birth, the whole meme crumbles under its own ridiculousness.

Anecdote: one of my brother's friends was rambling on about this the other day.  He's a hardcore Republican, prided himself on an essay he wrote defending sweatshops (I kid you not), and made disparaging comments about the homeless we passed.  As I told my brother later, that takes a lot of gall coming from a kid whose parents have not only showered him with material gifts, but who've set him up with job opportunities through their connections.  Is it wrong that he received gifts and got jobs through connections: no, but I'd say it deprives him of the right to make claims about 'personal responsibility.' 

I understand why people on the right have this idea that the left is trying to punish people for being rich, but that's not the case.  What concerns us, if I can speak for other people on the left, is that 'personal responsibility' is touted as a justification for the end of social services, while at the same time the right is passing protectionist legislation that would essentially allow a portion of the population to avoid having to flex that personal responsibility the party supposedly prides itself on.  It's like a farce, except they make no bones about it.

I asked you for metrics. If "logic" and "fairness" are priorities then you need to be able to measure how one system supports logic better than others (by say, I don't know, supporting science over conjecture)

For example, if you were to talk about economic fairness, one could (if one chose) measure that by the distribution of wealth (note, I didn't say EQUAL distribution) or by a lower correlation between economic background and one's eventual wealth. Those are examples, and I'm sure you don't agree, but you can't prioritize what you can't measure and a measurement of "I know it when I see it" isn't useful to anybody else.

Just pick one and give me a means or testing the success of a particular set of policies in encouraging what you claim to prioritize.

that the party platforms (Dems | Reps ) are a good place to start. After that, I'd look at legislation passed (or supported) along party lines. After that, I'd look at how mainstream supporters of the "other" side describe their positions (harder to do than you might think, since anyone blogging online is more likely to be extreme).

If I were evaluating the effectiveness of the various platforms, I'd also be sure to look at how Governors from the "other" side have actually governed -- you'd be surprised how quickly impractical philosophies that Senators enjoy parading around are abandoned by Governors who only care about making [things] work, asap.

that a higher tide floats all boats is a huge part of the reason this country is great!

Who will you ask to put in the stop lights? Or should we just build our own roads, have our own fire departments and make our own stop signs, build our own schools, and have no miitary. Taxes are good if the government is supervised to spend the money wisely.

about my beliefs and values I am not necessarily associating it with the republican party. I think the Republican party (at  least in principle) is the closest to my values.

I don't know what the true identity of GOP is anymore and I doubt anyone can really state it with certainty. I'd classify myself as a small government economic conservative but I think we might be the minority of even the Republican base. Though I think Religious conservatives are also a minority of the Republican base.

Many of the things I attributed to the Democratic Party (not the outright desire to slide into Communism) are true imo - specifically the constant use of the class warfare theme. That is a socialist tool and it would be disingineous to claim otherwise. Most of the Democratic appeal is done through that frame. If the Democratic Party stands for capitalism then they try to have it both ways by appealing to people base hatreds and envy.

but I act differently according to different situations.  I do see the test is trying to get a general summation of my attitudes, but I do not like generalizations for the most part.

but I still think 'class warfare' is a small part of what democrats stand for, just as you think Christian faith/values are what republicans stand for.  Both of these are present in our parties, but it is the extent to which we emphasize these points that alters our perception. 

It's kind of funny.  We both have a disagreement of what each other parties represent.  I think the democratic party provides more opportunity to more people allowing for greater freedom for the majority (both economically and socially--such as allowing women into the workforce, homosexual rights, etc.) while I think Republicans hinder these rights.  On the other hand, you see regulation as stifling freedom, which I obviously don't.  See, different frames of reference and interpretations of political reality. 

back to JFK.  But there are some discussions among the Founders about how freedom we have here, along with hard work,  leading to success and such.  Will have to dig those out and show you.

expressed by pissedpatriot on dkos all the time. Now the guy is a pure socialist with communist leanings and though people disagree with him, they mostly try to justify themselves to him by trying to excuse their actions as doing them for some common good.

a beautiful quote from the moron:

Honey, all of us in this capitalistic world are basically morally bankrupt. You don't want me to go there, I'll wreck you day reminding you of all the s**t we do and ignore each day.

Now, of course dkos is not representative of the Dem Party (far too liberal) but the anti-capitalist sentiment is not rare. Class warfare sentiment is prevalent. Also plenty of democrats view capitalism as immoral, something they have to put up with - deal with the corporate world.

Small part? I don't think so.

... in favor of the top 1%?

Bush is the War President.  He declared war on the middle class.  He's the reverse Robin Hood.  Stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

cutting taxes of those who actually pay taxes is stealing from the poor to give to the rich... Nevermind that it's actually their own money they don't have to pay.

This illustrates the liberal mindset perfectly - your money does not belong to you. Thanks for proving my point.

because there was a very tangible and critical difference. I just stopped arguing because you were rah rah rahing too much :)

Also that whole argument has no relation to the fact that tax money does not automatically belong to the government and that when you cut taxes for those who pay them, you are just not taking as much money away from those same people - as opposed to stealing from the poor nonsense.

I can't wait to live in your utopian vision of a military state.

Is there a country we can use to model our nation after, that is sufficiently militaristic and that allows for unbridled  capitalistism to serve the public needs for basic infrastructure?

sentiments exist among democrats.  I am saying you focusing only on them to define the party (and your opposition to the party) is a mistake.  Even then, raising concerns about the poor or the growing divide between classes does not automatically make one a 'socialist,' 'communist,' or class warrior. 

I am sure I can pull out thousands of quotes using a religious basis for an argument among republicans, but does that make it the overriding concern of republicans?

Why do you keep dismissing my points?

You focusing solely on this issue discards all the other qualities of the party.  Reflect for a second on how you frame things before coming back with some irrelevant example of a democrat (especially on Dkos) making a class-based argument.

there are other qualities of the Dem party...

I am just trying to get to the root of what Dems rely on to bring out their vote. It's not a pretty picture.

What Dem qualities are most important to you?

you conflate conservative with right-wing.

I dislike simple lists of qualities, because, like bumperstickers, they do not allow you to expound much.  Here are a few qualities anyway:

Diversity

Environmentalism

Fairness (used loosely)

Complexity

Relativity

Secularism (reason, rationality, science)

Personal rights and freedom (individualism)

Multilateralism

Honesty (I'm not sure if this is a dem trait or not--afterall, they are politicians  :))

Culture and Arts

Education

Healthcare

Respect of personal choice and difference

Probably more, but I am braindead after my classes today.  Try teaching 'Deconstruction' to freshman non-English majors.  Ah, the agony!

The foundation of capitalism, as I see it:

"from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"

If I need a motorcycle, not a car, why should I not have it?  If I am good at medicine, why should I be required to practice law?

Capitalism provides a framework where one's abilities will generally find a paying buyer, and one's needs (indeed, even wants) are met by that same framework.  It's a beautifully symetric framework, where each puts in what he's good at, is paid accordingly, and receives back from society what he needs, not what they think he needs.

But this, of course, is a liberal view of Markets.  A laisse-faire economy would be dreadfully authoritarian, just as a strict communist one would be; that's why we strive for a third way, the least dogmatic the better.  If a socialist idea works -- nationalized military, instead of militias, for example -- we'll use it.  Same with capitalist ideas.

"Yes, economics is what the most important issues are based on and where our liberties will be lost."

I'm not sure how my income levels affect my freedoms, but whatever.  You could cut my taxes in half or double them and it would have little impact on my day-to-day existence, after all.  But whether or not I have a right to a trial, should I be falsly accused of being a terrorist, is much more important to me -- and naturally it doesn't matter if it's me or some brown-skinned arab we're talking about, we're one and the same as far as I'm concerned.  Money is, always, a secondary issue when it comes to civil rights.  Typically, those who feel otherwise are usually those who love money a great deal, and tend to have a great deal of it, so their ideology can be easily discounted as dishonest.

That you think liberals' philosphy on taxes is based on envy of the "doers" is laughable.  Liberals are by and large the doers, after all, and the parasitic conservatives who think investment is labor are the ones driven by class envy.  Let me guess, rather than being told by a liberal that they envy wealth, you "deduced" it.  Am I right?  Is it fair for me to "deduce" fascist tendencies in conservatives, then?

No, liberals want to change the social structure so that we all have opportunities to become "doers", a state we obviously are very far from today.  And working for your communities -- for the "common good" -- is hardly a hallmark of "the left".  I doubt you'd find many real conservatives who don't have a similar community-oriented, patriotic outlook.  Those, like you, who put your own interests before those of your countries, are an anomoly that does not fit in either of the two main political camps in the U.S.  That you think it's "propaganda", and not just American tradition, that we raise our children to put the nation's interests ahead of their own narrow goals shows how little you know about our country.

Canada spends a third per capita for healthcare superior to ours.  If we took what we each spend now on healthcare each year, and paid it into a socialized model like all the other civilized nations of the world, we'd have a system like Canada's but with three times the cash in it.  We'd wait less for medical care than we do now, and get better care than we do now.

Part of this is becuase government spends about 2 cents on the dollar to administer health care, and private corporations spend about 15-20 cents.  I have not cite for this, but I've seen it repeated by enough varied sources to take it as true for the time being.

A progressive would say this alone is reason enough for the socialized model; a liberal would say cost and efficiency is irrelevant, and that we owe it to our country to make sure each of us is protected from nature and our enemies (health/fire/environmental and military spending, relatively speaking).  Both are right, in a sense.  What's wrong is saying that only the wealthy should have access to care, our should have access to better care than everyone else, as only a crass misanthrope would classify our bodies as consumer products.  It's like saying the rich should get better treatment in our court systems, or deserve better police protection, or more representation in Congress -- some of the most un-American concepts I can imagine.

Thankfully, for us liberals, they did make clear, in plain English, that one of the roles of government was to provider for the "general welfare".

Progressives don't trust government either. That is why we need oversight.

Open that Freedom Keys page and you will see tons of inspiring words, that will make you want to love and fight  to preserve this great country and a reminder of all the great people that have done so in the past!

(As a side note, I just saw John Laesh (sp?) the Democrat running against Hastert do an interview with Chris Matthews. Wow! Super dooper impressive. Especially for a newbie. A union carpenter, and an intelligence officer in Iraq!)

What, tending warlord's fields and cattle is not work?