Dennis Clayson is a marketing professor at UNI.

 

Who is an authoritarian? Ironically, there is one strongly held belief in America shared by both the right and the left. Both sides are convinced that the other side is composed of authoritarians who will restrict or eliminate cherished freedoms.

The actual definition of the term "authoritarian" is not even debated. Both sides agree that it can be defined as relating to or favoring submission to authority, or as favoring the concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

Authoritarianism is also characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power. Both sides of the political spectrum agree that authoritarians will seek political power by the repression and exclusion of other groups and ideas.

Those who fancy themselves as being wise and superior maintain that they would never be subject to ideas and ideologies that they have not completely and subjectively analyzed, but …

Then the "but" will come down as a judgment of the ideology they disagree with, parroted almost word-for-word in the language and constructs of the side they actually have embraced.

These superior people will quote Vladimir Lenin, who once said, "He who is not with us is against us." Then to show their balance, they will quote George W. Bush who said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

One way of maintaining this vanity of superiority is to turn your bias into a science. We see this all too often on almost any issue in which one side wants the other side to "shut up." Consider global warming as exhibit one.

Since the 1980s, there has actually been a theory in social psychology and political science called "right wing authoritarianism." It is abbreviated as RWA. Those on the right who suffer from RWA value uniformity and advocate for collective authority, including force if necessary to achieve it.

Just think of Hitler and you can fill in whatever blanks you may have of the concept.

To make their point, these social scientists will ironically point to individuals and groups who are now opposed to centralized federal power.

You see, authoritarian types seek simple answers to complex questions and put too much faith in their leaders. Of course, conservatives would maintain that this statement applies almost perfectly to Obama supporters.

The social scientists maintain that those subject to RWA are actually led by people who cynically take advantage of their mindset. Examples include leaders who are opportunistic and manipulative, characterized by Republican presidential candidates and people such as Sarah Palin.

I did not make this up.

These leaders simplify complex issues and supply the simple answers their followers demand. Sufferers of RWA, according to modern "science," are not logical and are comfortable with contradictory beliefs. At this point, the tea party may be drawn upon as a self-evident example.

These sources will use terms to describe authoritarian conservatives such as "they can’t see" certain contradictions and subtleties that they, of course, can see.

All of these traits can be seen in the left as well. Some social scientists have suggested that authoritarianism is actually characterized as an advanced stage of liberal democracy. Jonah Goldberg sees few major distinctions between modern liberalism and classical fascism.

In politics, those on the left are constantly condemning the right for not compromising, while those on the right maintain that the left has no intention of compromising.

There is one important distinction between the right and left, and that is in what should be controlled. The right would use the power of government to restrict abortions. The left would use the power of government to restrict medical choice. The left would use power to restrict economic freedom, while the right would restrict the definition of marriage.

Of course, I am convinced that liberalism is almost off the charts on authoritarianism. It is difficult to find almost anything, outside of sex and its consequences, which the modern American left does not want a central authority to control.

(96) comments

Axolotl
Axolotl

This weeks episode of Strawman In The MIddle, brought to you by the NE Upper IA Permanent Faculty Unio... Family; Party of One.

That red meat may have some detrimental health effects does not make semi-composted gruel a healthy dietary choice.

reojoe
reojoe

Clayson is DEAD WRONG on this one. There's only one type of authoritarianism, and it exists ONLY on the left. The left encompasses all of the ideologies of socialerism, communerism, statism, and fascism.

In short, there are no extreme ideologies on the right.

bdy777
bdy777

Republicans in House are controlled by Big $$ Special Interest Groups, they use moral issues to get votes then ignore abortion etc. when elected, how many republicans have served seats in Congress, White House and Supreme Court since Roe vs Wade,? The American people (including NRA members and republicans) are overwhelmingly fo stricter background checks etc... it's the special interests/lobbyists who work for the gunmakers etc.. who are paying Big$$ to our TeaParty Congress to keep saying No, it's not about Integrity, or For The People, it's all about the Almighty Dollar.
We need Government that reacts to the People not $$

xdfred2
xdfred2

And democrats are as pure as the driven snow, right?

"....The American people (including NRA members and republicans) are overwhelmingly fo stricter background checks etc..."

XD: Fib.

Axolotl
Axolotl

XD Fibs.

FTFY

BIL
BIL

XD: "Fib."

Fib fib!

Everything I've seen lines up with bdy777's assertion. Got any data to back up your disagreement?

xdfred2
xdfred2

Everything I've seen? Sure, Goebbels said if you repeat a lie often enough everyone believes it. I haven't been able to find anything showing "....The American people (including NRA members and republicans) are overwhelmingly fo stricter background checks etc..." other than people like him writing it over and over.

BIL
BIL

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/19/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-wide-majority-nra-households-sup/

• One poll was done by CBS News and the New York Times. The survey, conducted Jan. 11-15, 2013, found that 85 percent of those living in a household with an NRA member favored background checks for all potential gun buyers.

• The other survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, was taken Feb. 13-18, 2013. It found that "people in NRA households overwhelmingly favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks: 74 percent favor this proposal while just 26 percent are opposed."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

• Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.

• CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: "Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. ... If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show." Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.

• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.


NICE JOB THROWING OUT A NAZI REFERENCE.

GOT ANYTHING TO BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS, OR JUST ZINGERS AND QUIPS?

xdfred2
xdfred2

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159824/u.s.-dissatisfied-want-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

40%????

http://pribek.net/2013/04/17/gallup-poll-shows-americans-are-dissatisfied-with-the-government-and-a-lot-more-worried-about-money-than-gun-control-or-immigration/

How can almost everyone want more gun control and background checks when nobody really thinks it's worthwhile?

xdfred2
xdfred2

AND QUIT YELLING!

xdfred2
xdfred2

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AP-GfK-April-2013-Topline-Posted-FINAL_guns.pdf

BIL
BIL

Yeah those links do NOT refute the assertion that a huge majority want expanded background checks. They ask different questions then that. But nice try at deflection, I guess.

I'll quit yelling when you quit falsely calling people liars and then spouting some BS about Nazism when called on it.

None of these poll results were mentioned in the right-wing media bubble that you reside in, huh?

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

As Phil pointed out a week or two ago, Democrats in the Senate are owned by Big Pharma and Big Insurance and passed the ACA w/o reading it. Apparently it's not only House Republicans who are controlled by Big $$ Special Interest groups.

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

Question:

If Americans are "overwhelmingly" for stricter background checks, why are only 47% of Americans disappointed that the Senate bill failed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/

BIL
BIL

I'd say it could be due to:

1. It just not being super-important to people, so its failure wasn't a big deal to them.
2. People not being very clear on what exactly was in the bill.
3. People just expect Congress to fail at everything at all times. So them failing to pass popular legislation gets a reaction of "Well yeah of course that happened. Meh."

bdy777
bdy777

I agree and the people will definitely speak November 2014, 2012 coulda been our chance to speak, we voted well over a million more votes for Dems in House but of course there's JERRYMANDERING....

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

1. It just not being super-important to people, so its failure wasn't a big deal to them.
---so the support isn't so "overwhelming." Thank you.

2. People not being very clear on what exactly was in the bill
---a lot of low information voters out there then. This was plastered all over the cable news shows...one would have to willingly avoid any information about this bill to claim ignorance.

3. People just expect Congress to fail at everything at all times. So them failing to pass popular legislation gets a reaction of "Well yeah of course that happened. Meh."
---You may have a point there.... the Reid Senate, Boehner and Pelosi House have given us no reason to believe any different.

cross1242
cross1242

"Godwin's Law" propounded back in 1990 is: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Apparently, the law also applies to long newspaper columns too.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Which, of coures, you are forced to read, correct?

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

He reads and replies for our own good. Cross won't rest until Clayson dies, retires, or is fired by the Courier. Heaven forbid anyone be exposed to opinion and content that doesn't fit with "approved" dissent to the political hard left.

Axolotl
Axolotl

Don't worry thebigguy, your side will beat Obama in 2016! Keep up the good works!

cross1242
cross1242

Only as far as his Hitler analogy.

Dave88
Dave88

The comments on this from the liberals only show that Clayson's article is correct. Funny!

Phil
Phil

Huh?

Clayson says something stupid or incorrect and liberals respond to it.

So now magically because liberals point out Clayson's comment was stupid or incorrect, that means Clayson's comment was actually correct?

Or maybe it means you're no smarter than Clayson? Did you ever consider that might be the actual meaning?

xdfred2
xdfred2

"Phil - 3 hours ago
Huh?

Clayson says something stupid or incorrect and liberals respond to it."

XD: Normal people tend to ignore real stupidity. Only the weak minded have such Pavlovian knee jerk responses.

So now magically because liberals point out Clayson's comment was stupid or incorrect, that means Clayson's comment was actually correct?

XD: IN this case, yes. When have liberals ever been right about anything without changing rules or twisting definitions, as well as re-writing history. See hockey stick graph.

"Or maybe it means you're no smarter than Clayson? Did you ever consider that might be the actual meaning?"

XD: See lib track records on Obamacare, stimulus, gun control, open borders, the economy...........

bdy777
bdy777

See Trickle Down Effect FAILURE
Check Out Clinton Administration's Surplus which was completely used up and then put us in near 2nd Great Depression, check out how Obama has moved us in the right direction even with total obstruction from Republican Majority House.
If being smart means being blind to OBVIOUS facts than you XD are brilliant.

Axolotl
Axolotl

The comments from Dave88 only show he hasn't a clue. Sad!

Dave88
Dave88

Heh I hope you feel smart. Now! You are the sad one!

Axolotl
Axolotl

It's more a state of being rather than feeling; as for the latter, yes, but that's mostly owning to all the non-polarizing factual-ness you bring to the table making XD look a bit flabbier than usual.

Oh, almost forgot, !

Phil
Phil

These comments from Clayson are particularly, well wrong:

The right would use the power of government to restrict abortions.
-- Correct - but that is the same as restricting medical choice.

The left would use the power of government to restrict medical choice.
-- Uh, how? By allowing you to control your medical choices? Without examples, evidence, etc., I don't see how this could be seen as anything but a complete falsehood.

The left would use power to restrict economic freedom,
-- Economic freedom? Again, such as? This sounds like code language for any number of things - paying taxes, environmental regulations, consumer protection, etc. - which only exist to prevent "your" economic freedom from destroying the freedoms of someone else.

....while the right would restrict the definition of marriage.
-- Well that's certainly true, using religion where it has no place in our civil laws.

Just more contradictory "logic" from Mr. Clayson.

xdfred2
xdfred2

"Phil - 2 hours ago
These comments from Clayson are particularly, well wrong:

The right would use the power of government to restrict abortions.
-- Correct - but that is the same as restricting medical choice."

XD: Does restricting the medical choice of the victims count? Is prosecuting Kermit Gosnell restricting medical choice in your world?

The left would use the power of government to restrict medical choice.
-- Uh, how? By allowing you to control your medical choices? Without examples, evidence, etc., I don't see how this could be seen as anything but a complete falsehood.

XD: You you don't see and what's happening are two different things. What's happening? Hours cut, employees losing health benefits, costs rising, doctors quitting. Thank you Obamacare.

The left would use power to restrict economic freedom,
-- Economic freedom? Again, such as? This sounds like code language for any number of things - paying taxes, environmental regulations, consumer protection, etc. - which only exist to prevent "your" economic freedom from destroying the freedoms of someone else.

XD: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

....while the right would restrict the definition of marriage.
-- Well that's certainly true, using religion where it has no place in our civil laws.

XD: Maintain would best describe it. If so called same sex marriage was such a neat idea, why didn't it catch on 100's, or even 1000's of years ago? Why is it no c ountry ever recognized it before the mid 1900's? If it's such a neat idea.

"Just more contradictory "logic" from Mr. Clayson."

XD: Just more tantrums, albeit mild, as rebuttals.

Axolotl
Axolotl

Just more rebuttal as tantrum, albeit another XDFAIL!

BIL
BIL

LOL
Spend several meandering paragraphs dismissing the idea of right-wing authoritarianism, then toss out a quick "and of course liberals are totally authoritarians" to wrap things up. Ta-dah! One typical Clayson column, ready for print.

I think people's attitudes towards authority depend on if "their people" are in power. I think the height of the "war on terror" under Bush was the worst authoritarianism I've ever seen in this country. Now under Obama the tables have turned and liberals trust in authority, while conservatives decry the authority that they loved when their people were holding the reins. It's very predictable.

xdfred2
xdfred2

"BIL - 17 hours ago
LOL
Spend several meandering paragraphs dismissing the idea of right-wing authoritarianism, then toss out a quick "and of course liberals are totally authoritarians" to wrap things up. Ta-dah! One typical Clayson column, ready for print."

XD: And you were expecting what? Praise for the Gosnell party?

I think people's attitudes towards authority depend on if "their people" are in power.

XD: Sure. Hillary said communism would be a big hit if 'the right people' were in charge.

I think the height of the "war on terror" under Bush was the worst authoritarianism I've ever seen in this country.

XD: You must not get out much.

Now under Obama the tables have turned and liberals trust in authority, while conservatives decry the authority that they loved when their people were holding the reins. It's very predictable.

XD: Wrong. Everything Bush did was done with congressional approval. Obama brags about circumventing congress to knock down the second amendment. Like a good Maoist, Obama knows power comes from the barrel of a gun. And he wants control. The every definition of an authoriatarian. That's why libs can't stand us 'commoners' being armed.

xdfred2
xdfred2

This authoritarian isn't doing to well these days:

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2013/apr/18/obama-fail/

Maybe Kermit Gosnell should run for president. he's the face of the democrat party these days.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/34339/dr-kermit-gosnell-s-abortion-trial-why-isn-t-the-media-covering-it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/04/15/why-kermit-gosnell-hasnt-been-on-page-one/

Axolotl
Axolotl

xdfred2 and his links. Kids will say the darnedest things!

Had considered nominating XD for the Iowa Character Award, but it's adults only, sorry.

cross1242
cross1242

XD: "Maybe Kermit Gosnell should run for president. he's the face of the democrat party these days."

Me: "Baloney!"

cross1242
cross1242

BTW, the full meaning of "Baloney!" is that the statement is so preposterously stupid as to require no time on reasoned rebuttal.

xdfred2
xdfred2

OK, I thought that's what you thought Gosnell made out of the remains of his victims. The ones he didn't preserve in jars, or throw in the trash.

Phil
Phil

XD: Normal people tend to ignore real stupidity

Phil: Consider yourself ignored, because you're as real as it gets.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Thanks for proving my point about weak minded liberals.

Phil
Phil

You have a point? LOL!

Here was your point:
XD: Normal people tend to ignore real stupidity

By ignoring you I'm proving your point. This was the best - and only - point you've ever made.

xdfred2
xdfred2

"Phil - 2 hours ago
You have a point? LOL!

Here was your point:
XD: Normal people tend to ignore real stupidity

By ignoring you I'm proving your point. This was the best - and only - point you've ever made."

XD: That's just it, clue. You're not ignoring me. What a joke. You and Cross. A real class act.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Congress? What congress?

http://www.examiner.com/article/after-senate-setback-obama-quietly-moving-forward-with-gun-regulation

BIL
BIL

A Democrat in the House tried to make some changes to CISPA:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:HR00624:@@@X
4/18/2013 12:30pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Perlmutter motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to prohibit employers, prospective employers, or the Federal Government from requiring the disclosure of social networking or personal account passwords by an employee or job applicant without a court order. The Motion would also prohibit the Federal Government from establishing a mechanism by which it could control citizen's access to the Internet with a national firewall similar to the "Great Internet Firewall of China." Lastly, the Motion would make changes to the McCaul amendment, adding a section that requires reporting of information on the number of Americans who have been forced to disclose passwords and had information released to the Federal government or obtained in connection
4/18/2013 12:42pm:
The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H2143)
4/18/2013 12:50pm:
On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 189 - 224 (Roll no. 116). (consideration: CR H2143-2144)

All of the Republicans voted against:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll116.xml

But obviously Democrats are always authoritarians and Republicans are always the staunch defenders of personal freedom... right?

BIL
BIL

Over the last week, lots of freedom-loving conservative Republicans called for the Boston bomber to be denied his right to remain silent and for him to be tortured. Seems fairly authoritarian to me, to encourage the government to torture its own citizens who are suspected of a crime.

But I thought only liberals were authoritarians?

Dave88
Dave88

Really? Please prove this. When you say lots, how many is that? Everyone?

Axolotl
Axolotl

Dave88 - "When you say lots, how many is that? Everyone?"

That's how most dictionaries define it. Keep up the good effort; you're doing everyone better!

BIL
BIL

Do you ever say anything useful or interesting?

Axolotl
Axolotl

BIL - 1 hour ago
Do you ever say anything useful or interesting?

No, should I, here under a Clayson article followed by such sentience as presented by XD. To what end?

How about you?

BIL
BIL

Axolotl: "No"

Glad we're on the same page.

Axolotl
Axolotl

BIL- Glad we're on the same page.

Interesting turn of phrase...?

BIL
BIL

Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Peter King would like to treat him as an enemy combatant:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/20/capitol-hill-republicans-want-combatant-status-for-bombing-suspect-obama-yet-to/

This fool (who is such a moron he makes Piers Morgan look good) really wants to do some torturin':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQcP_IVglJo

And last night Jon Stewart had a really good roundup of practically every talking head on Fox News advocating for throwing lots of different rights in the garbage because of this case:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-24-2013/weak-constitution

No, it's not everyone, but it is "lots" and you don't see liberals having the same reaction to this case.

Dave88
Dave88

LOL you quote John Stewart a comedian and a couple of others and that makes your argument. Scary how many liberals use John Stewart who is an admitted comedy act, then get obsessed about Fox News. That's fine you keep convincing your self of this.

BIL
BIL

Stewart just shows things that Fox News says. Sorry if you don't like what he finds. And yes I'm pretty convinced that one party is comfortable eroding our rights and principles in the face of terrorism, more than the other party.

xdfred2
xdfred2

A real administration headed by a real president would have teh FBI ascertain how someone wh's family claimed asylum to live here and who all live on welfare could go to Russia, likely Chechnya, the place his family claimed asylum from, for 9 months. Who bankrolled the subjects brother's trip? Was it a terrorist organization? If so, that makes him and his accomplice enemy combatanst, and no Constitutional protections. But Obama and co. want to sweep all that under the rug. Same deal with Benghazi.
A real administration headed by a real president would also have heeded Russia's warnings about the subjects brother, and prevented this act.
We're up to 5 major terrorist attacks on our soil under Obama's watch.

Axolotl
Axolotl

"We're up to 5 major terrorist attacks on our soil under Obama's watch."

Freddy and his militia keep failing! C'mon XD train that he/she piglet of yours to ferret out terrorist instead of truffles! Try being a real Patriot for a change....

BIL
BIL

XD: "Who bankrolled the subjects brother's trip?"

LOL. A couple grand at most for plane tickets, and he likely stayed with his parents while he was there. Pretty huge operation to "bankroll".

"Eric Rudolph, the anti-abortion bigot behind the 1996 Atlanta bombing, was tried as a criminal. What makes Boston different?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/tsarnaev-enemy-combatant-double-standard

"Who is an enemy combatant? Today, it can be anyone the president wants.
And that is terrifying."
http://www.creators.com/opinion/judge-napolitano/-quot-enemy-combatants-quot-cast-into-a-constitutional-hell.html

So you support the ***authority*** of worst-president-of-all-time Barack Hussein Obama to override the constitutional rights of American citizens as it so pleases him? OK then...

xdfred2
xdfred2

"BIL - 2 hours ago
XD: "Who bankrolled the subjects brother's trip?"

LOL. A couple grand at most for plane tickets, and he likely stayed with his parents while he was there. Pretty huge operation to "bankroll". "

XD: Glad you're sticking up for terrorists. Question still stand. How does a person on welfare get the dough to make such a trip? And where was he for those 9 months? What did he live on? If he were bankrolled by an enemy otganization, then guess what?

What's an anti-abortion bigot? You're mixing up your silly PC terms and they sound even sillier. ARe you saying he's bigoted against abortion?

WHat makes Boston different? Jihad. That's what. But for tools who believe the fort Hood massacre was just 'workplace violence', that's not surprising. Another difference? Rudolgf went after an abortion clinic. These jihadists went after the man in the street.

"So you support the ***authority*** of worst-president-of-all-time Barack Hussein Obama to override the constitutional rights of American citizens as it so pleases him? OK then..."

XD: Ahhh, the good old dimwit act. The US Constitution, please read it some time, is pretty specific on persons who take up arms and join our enemies.


xdfred2
xdfred2

"Who is an enemy combatant? Today, it can be anyone the president wants.
And that is terrifying."
http://www.creators.com/opinion/judge-napolitano/-quot-enemy-combatants-quot-cast-into-a-constitutional-hell.html

XD: So who's the authoritarian again? Who refuses to prosecute Black Panther domestic terrorists for intimidation? Who refuses to enforce other fed law?

BIL
BIL

XD: "The US Constitution, please read it some time, is pretty specific on persons who take up arms and join our enemies."

Please show me.

XD "So who's the authoritarian again?"

Almost everyone at high levels of the government, both Democrat and Republican.

Phil
Phil

XD: Normal people tend to ignore real stupidity

Time to ignore again.....REALLY time to ignore....

xdfred2
xdfred2

And yet you can't, can you? Thanks for proving the theory.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Who wants to take away what we've had for a long time? Who stifles free speech? Who wants censorship? Who uses judicial decrees to usurp the will of the people?

Dave88
Dave88

Here we go, all the liberal authoritarians typing away on this blog calling us names, telling us we don't have a clue. Then wandering why the country is so polarized? Again you are not helping your cause, only showing how thin skinned your party is. LOL

Phil
Phil

Wandering? The GOP is certainly wandering right now.

Continue to deny reality if you like, and I'm sure you will, but the GOP's radical turn to the right the past 20 years is what is polarizing this nation.

You want to stop polarization of politics? Two things would stop it immediately:

1. Publically financed campaigns - or a return to strong campaign donation limits.
2. All states be required to redistrict their congressional seats the way Iowa does. No more gerrymandering.

Axolotl
Axolotl

Phil - Continue to deny reality if you like,...

He is not denying it, he is augmenting it! {NoLOL, BTW} One day Dave88 will grasp he's but a minor character in a Castaneda novel.

xdfred2
xdfred2

1. Then democrats would never win. If it weren't for Soros and Hollywood, people would be saying 'Obama who'? right now.
2. What does that have to do with Obama and his divisive talk and actions?

What's polarizing the nation is the democrat party's radical turn to the left from about 30 years ago. Democrats of the day would be appalled at what the democrat party has become. Booing good at the democrat party national convention, and backing abortion no matter what. (See Kermit Gosnell).

xdfred2
xdfred2

That would be booing God....

xdfred2
xdfred2

Forgot to add government employee unions to #1.

Dave88
Dave88

Ok, wondering is the correct spelling. My god I am sure you have never mis-spelled a word right?

Dave88
Dave88

I agree with your comments about campaigns I am assuming you are including the Democrats on his right? Do your homework before making comments like this.

cross1242
cross1242

Clayson and Dave88 not withstanding, "liberal authoritarians" really is a tautology.

Phil
Phil

Hmmm, Repubs and right wing posters here complain about not getting a budget passed, yet now that the House and Senate have eached passed a budget the next step is for a conference committee between the two chambers is to be appointed.

Only the Repubs won't appoint any members to the committee.......

Just another authoritarian ploy by the right wingers to polarize our government

xdfred2
xdfred2

And since you have zero credibiilty, we should just trust you, right?

Axolotl
Axolotl

Aww, c'mon Phred, surely you got a linky to WND or BriteBart to bolster that post up a bit don't you? Rise to the occasion.

Dave88
Dave88

What is most obvious is that by the sheer number of comments once again it shows how liberals cannot stand the fact that people have a different opinion then theirs! How embarrassing for you!

Phil
Phil

Dave - xdfred makes the most comments here BY FAR - and he's one of yours. He's the one that can't stand anyone having a different opinion.

As for myself, Clayson has his opinion which is his right. I just don't like folks relying on misinformed and false information and assumptions that Clayson uses, so I make sure to point those things out to educate folks, which is my right.

xdfred2
xdfred2

I can stand other opinions. I'm very very tolerant of other persons opinions, unlike you lefty's who want the professor and others like him silenced. You vilify persons you don't agree with , like Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc.

hrgrosser
hrgrosser

xdfred2 - 53 minutes ago I can stand other opinions. I'm very very tolerant of other persons opinions, unlike you lefty's who want the professor and others like him silenced. You vilify persons you don't agree with , like Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc.

You tolerant???? THAT is the most hilarious thing I have EVER read on these boards. Thanks for the laugh!

xdfred2
xdfred2

I'm not one of anybody's, unlike you lock step democrat party Gosnell supporting Obama worshippers.

Do you have any 'opinions' on Obama's many many failures? Biden's?

Phil
Phil

Well right wingers, Frank Luntz, one of the leading Repub consultants, has admitted what we on the left have all known for some time. Right wing talk radio is killing the Repub party.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/25/frank_luntz_rush_limbaugh_and_the_secret_tape_addiction.html

If Repubs were smart, they would put Colin Powell in charge of the party and follow everything he said and they might find they were relevant again.

xdfred2
xdfred2

WHat an opnion. From Slate. Perhaps it's due to lefty's vilifying those who's opinions they don't agree with, that are on the radio. And some in the general public falling for it.

Slate?

Phil
Phil

Yes Slate.

With actual links, video, etc.

In other words - evidence to support the facts presented.

xdfred2
xdfred2

From a proven bent source. If you're correct, wouldn't this be all over the place? CNN, MSNBC, Fox? Alphabets? Sorry. Doesn't really wash.

xdfred2
xdfred2

In other words, 'baloney'.

BIL
BIL

Here you go Fred, straight from the most trustworthy news outlet in the history of mankind!

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/rush-limbaugh-is-biden-drunk/

{Pollster Frank Luntz was secretly recorded at the University of Pennsylvania this week, claiming that talk radio hosts like Mark Levin are “destroying” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., by criticizing his immigration bill (FREE audio).

“He’s getting destroyed by Mark Levin, by Rush Limbaugh and a few others,” Luntz told a group of students, in what was supposed to be an off-the-record exchange. “He’s trying to find a legitimate, long-term effective solution to immigration that isn’t the traditional Republican approach, and talk radio is killing him.”}

xdfred2
xdfred2

BIL - 15 minutes ago

......“He’s getting destroyed by Mark Levin, by Rush Limbaugh and a few others,” Luntz told a group of students, in what was supposed to be an off-the-record exchange. “He’s trying to find a legitimate, long-term effective solution to immigration that isn’t the traditional Republican approach, and talk radio is killing him.”}

XD: We went from 'killing the repub party' to just criticizing Sen Rubio. Way to back pedal for your comrade, comrade. Unlike libs, when our leaders do something we don't think is good, we speak up.
I'm really really glad Phils is sooooo worried about the GOP.

Axolotl
Axolotl

>xdfred2 - 21 hours ago - From a proven bent source.

But you, xdfred, were not cited or linked to!

xdfred2
xdfred2

Well left wingers, Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier , one of the leading democrat party congresspersons, has admitted what we conservatives have all known for some time. Obamacare is killing the country.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/26/leading-democrat-obamacare-does-not-address-healthcare-cost-containment-n1579509

If Democrats grew some smarts, they would put healthcare into the hands of the states where it belongs.

cross1242
cross1242

Well, this is my last comment -- forever. I've got some other things to do so I won't be coming back. For my fellow libbies on this board -- keep up the work against the forces of stupidity. Remember to give them an occasional "Baloney!" in memory of me.

xd -- take no consolation. You wouldn't be happy if I explained those "other things."

xdfred2
xdfred2

See ya', wouldn't want to be ya'.

Phil
Phil

Duh.

Cost was an issue BEFORE Obamacare. Obamacare isn't causing cost increases and in fact health care spending is trending downward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/us/politics/sharp-slowdown-in-us-health-care-costs.html?_r=0

So again what have you proved?

Nothing as usual - except you're still really good at posting links that don't support your talking points.

xdfred2
xdfred2

I suggest you argue with the congresswoman. It appears it's her opnion you can't stand.

I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. Reading and comprehension.

bdy777
bdy777

Conservatives? Where? The country is Dying? Sounds like Crazy Talk again from the Hard-Right...

bdy777
bdy777

Fact of it all in a Nutshell;
It took the economic catastrophe caused by George W. Bush’s policies followed by the election of President Obama—not merely a black man, it’s important to note, but a black Democrat with a foreign-sounding name—to bring that paranoia to epidemic proportions.
Obama tried BiPartisanship, compromise etc., to no Avail!
CONCLUSION; Crazy can’t be reasoned with, only defeated.
By voting out the obstructers of economic recovery, who's only priority was to make Obama look bad, so he wouldn't win 2nd Term (Mitch McConnels Words)..putting America's Economy lower on list of priorities, how UnAmerican is That?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.