Mine was 87.8 percent; I blew it on the economic questions at the end. Am I mistaken in thinking the economic questions were rather subjective, or did I just completely miss the boat?

Taint wrote:

Mine was 87.8 percent; I blew it on the economic questions at the end. Am I mistaken in thinking the economic questions were rather subjective, or did I just completely miss the boat?

No, they were weird. Oddly anti-socialist too. Here's the right answer to one I missed:

When taxes equal government spending: Tax per person equals government spending per person.

That doesn't even make any fucking sense, considering that we all pay different amounts of tax and draw different amounts of benefits. Bill Gates and Joe the Unemployed Plumber are both "persons" in this scheme.

By the way, the test was administered to 2,500 "random Americans," some of whom were "self-identified elected officials." I'm guessing that means two or three. Guess what the headline at Agence-France was?

93.94%, not too shabby for someone who could be your kid's Kindergarten teacher.  The economic stuff was a bit weird, but I never actually took economics, so who gives a fuck?

You're behind the wheel.

You answered 32 out of 33 correctly — 96.97 %

Average score for this quiz during November: 78.1%
Average score: 78.1%

I missed question 27.  I fucking hated economics.

Abe Lincoln isn't exactly the fantastic man everybody makes him out to be.  He was just as racist as the rest of the fuckers around at that time.  Case in point:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.



Yeah.  He's a REAL friend to African Americans.

Taint wrote:

Old news, but always worth re-visiting. On the other hand, it's difficult to impose contemporary mores and ideals on people of previous times. On the other hand, there were plenty of individuals at that time with considerably more enlightened opinions about race. Well, not so many, but at least a good handful. OK, several, there were several people in the United States during the mid-1800's who had at least slightly more advanced views about race but they were probably social pariahs and were rarely invited anywhere.

Indeed, they were absolutely NO fun at parties.

Taint wrote:

Old news, but always worth re-visiting. On the other hand, it's difficult to impose contemporary mores and ideals on people of previous times. On the other hand, there were plenty of individuals at that time with considerably more enlightened opinions about race. Well, not so many, but at least a good handful. OK, several, there were several people in the United States during the mid-1800's who had at least slightly more advanced views about race but they were probably social pariahs and were rarely invited anywhere.

I was simply trying to say that it's not accurate to chastize OR lionize him.  It's acceptable for us to say, "Lincoln was the great unifier, our best president ever, blah blah blah" but not to imply that he doesn't exactly deserve the accolades we heap on him.

Ah Poo The Destroyer wrote:

He was also homophobic...

It seems Lincoln was a typical closeted Republican.  At least he had more class than Larry Craig.

feisty wrote:

Taint wrote:

Old news, but always worth re-visiting. On the other hand, it's difficult to impose contemporary mores and ideals on people of previous times. On the other hand, there were plenty of individuals at that time with considerably more enlightened opinions about race. Well, not so many, but at least a good handful. OK, several, there were several people in the United States during the mid-1800's who had at least slightly more advanced views about race but they were probably social pariahs and were rarely invited anywhere.

I was simply trying to say that it's not accurate to chastize OR lionize him.  It's acceptable for us to say, "Lincoln was the great unifier, our best president ever, blah blah blah" but not to imply that he doesn't exactly deserve the accolades we heap on him.

Sorry, Feisty, I didn't mean to come off as if I were picking an argument. You're right - I was trying, unsuccessfully, to agree with you.

Taint wrote:

feisty wrote:

Taint wrote:

Old news, but always worth re-visiting. On the other hand, it's difficult to impose contemporary mores and ideals on people of previous times. On the other hand, there were plenty of individuals at that time with considerably more enlightened opinions about race. Well, not so many, but at least a good handful. OK, several, there were several people in the United States during the mid-1800's who had at least slightly more advanced views about race but they were probably social pariahs and were rarely invited anywhere.

I was simply trying to say that it's not accurate to chastize OR lionize him.  It's acceptable for us to say, "Lincoln was the great unifier, our best president ever, blah blah blah" but not to imply that he doesn't exactly deserve the accolades we heap on him.

Sorry, Feisty, I didn't mean to come off as if I were picking an argument. You're right - I was trying, unsuccessfully, to agree with you.

Naw, you did fine.  I'm stuck in "attack mode" most of the time... one of the side effects of my profession.  It's like clamydia for hookers... it just comes with the territory.