Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15

I've drifted to the right side

Holy crap, I'm further left than I thought...
Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.90..

Okay, so I'm a Mid-leftwing Authoritarian, Unaffiliated with any party. Nice to know, I guess...

I have no idea what the terms really mean... Like Liberal, Concervative, etc..

but here we go:

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54

The abstract art question really does depend on what you consider "abstract". To me, "abstract art" brings to mind stuff like hanging a store-bought shovel on the wall and calling it art, or a roll of chicken wire just sitting there on the floor, or the top of a paint-splattered table (all of which I actually saw in a museum ).

Reminds me of the simpsons episode where Homer builds a Barbeque completely wrong. It turns into a big mess of cement and metal which is later considered 'art'.

I consider abstract art to be any art that isn't meant to be recognized for what it actually is, but is interesting to look at... if that makes sense. I don't really like abstract art
If you look at it and ask "What is that?", it's probably abstract art.
Abstract
Not so abstract

I remember one advertisement from a magazine: "Maglite - A work of art that works." I have two (A 3D and a Solitaire), and i have to agree. Amazingly durable stuff.

Noooooooooo.......

You see, this question is pointless. Everybody has their own opinion on this subject, and since the whole discussion revolves around the definition of the word "art", we will ultimately fail to agree.
One could argue that art is everything that was created without a primary purpose, just for the sake of itself. But that would exclude most of the works of Bach, Rembrandt and the likes; Bach composed mainly for church services, and Rembrandt's paintings were intended to illustrate and decorate (as was all fine art until the late 1800s).
Then there's the definition of "depicting reality", which clearly doesn't fit most modern art, which is at least partly abstract, or intentionally distorts reality (surrealism comes to mind).
"Beauty" doesn't work either; especially in modern art, there are lots of works that are generally acknowledged to be "art", while being all but beautiful or pleasant to perceive. Plus, "beauty" is a very subjective thing. While I dislike most metal music, I can still understand that others may like it and even think of it as the most beautiful music they've ever heard.
Yet another definition might take "artistic value" into account, but this is so ridiculous I will only touch the basics. "Artistic value" is a very dangerous work because it implies that art is very complicated and hard to understand, something you need to learn thoroughly before you can appreciate it, and that only very very few people are enlightened enough to judge what is "valuable" and what is not. Hitler made laws about art using a similar definition. Nuff said.
Then there are people who say that something is art as soon as someone says so. Which isn't correct either, because that would truly make the maglite a stroke of artistic genius.

I'm a hippie!

I'm amazed at how many times I wished there were a "Couldn't (dis)agree more strongly" button.
Take this one: "Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."
There are only 3 advantages of "our race" I can think of:
1) We are less visible when placed in front of a light background
2) When tattooed, the colors come out nicely
3) The common prejudices against my race tend to open more doors for me than those that exist agains other races.
And 3 basically comes from people who "strongly agree" with the given statement in the first place.

I know. I forgot to use an emoticon.

What is not art?