Authoritarian Liberals

[US Conservative]

Keep up the good work.

No doubt there is more, tk.

 

[Donc]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

There is no point in reading further given the start where he defined out left wing authoritarianism.

I read to the point where he admits that the majority of people on his right wing authoritarian scale would simply be called law abiding. No wonder democrats are on the low end of the scale. Many of you are lawless.

It is hard to defeat an incumbent. Sometimes they lie to get elected. And sometimes they change. Once in they are hard to get rid of.

Nothing like an obtuse defense when all else fails ya eh? I expected nothing less though.:lol:

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

Nothing like an obtuse defense when all else fails ya eh? I expected nothing less though.:lol:

I began with an open mind and realized soon after that Herr Doktor was a propagandist. I can get propaganda here, and often do. Do you have any works by a real scientist?

 

[Donc]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

I began with an open mind and realized soon after that Herr Doktor was a propagandist. I can get propaganda here, and often do. Do you have any works by a real scientist?

Its kinda hard for me to believe that one would have an open mind on a book when they hardly got past the preface of said book.Did you bother to even check out any of the links that the author provided?

 

[Misterveritis]

Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

Its kinda hard for me to believe that one would have an open mind on a book when they hardly got past the preface of said book.Did you bother to even check out any of the links that the author provided?

He admitted within the first few pages that he found no indications of left wing authoritarianism. And of course if one selects just the right definition, one designed to provide propaganda to other leftists, it all just falls into place.

Once I saw his fraud I saw no reason to go any further. He is no scientist. He is just another propagandist.

I read his questions. If one accepts the his premise that his questions allow one to discern varying levels of authoritarianism then one will be driven to accept his conclusions. You read his propaganda. How did he confirm that his goofy questions measure what he claims they measure?

Once caught in a gross deception why would anyone bother to read any further. He had to give his book away. It has no value.

 

[Donc]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

Misterveritis

Once I saw his fraud I saw no reason to go any further. He is no scientist. He is just another propagandist.

Yet Professor Altemeyer was awarded the American Association for the Advancement of Science Prize for Behavioral Science Reserch in 1986. SOoo…what, in your opinion, would qualify as a Scientist?

I read his questions. If one accepts the his premise that his questions allow one to discern varying levels of authoritarianism then one will be driven to accept his conclusions. You read his propaganda. How did he confirm that his goofy questions measure what he claims they measure?

While were into questions; what did you score on the RWA Scale test? I bet it was over a hundred.Maybe as high as on fifty huh?:2wave:

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

Yet Professor Altemeyer was awarded the American Association for the Advancement of Science Prize for Behavioral Science Reserch in 1986. SOoo…what, in your opinion, would qualify as a Scientist?
A group of leftists who like the propaganda voted for him. Awesome. Do you realize based on your consistent defense of his authority that you would scover very high on his right wing authoritarian scale?

While were into questions; what did you score on the RWA Scale test? I bet it was over a hundred.Maybe as high as on fifty huh?:2wave:

His questions made no sense to me. I think he built his questions to drive toward the answers he was hoping for. Without going back into his screed I believe he mentions that most people who are law abiding citizens will score in the 90 plus range.

Like many left wing authoritarians you believe way too much in authority even when it is false authority. I suggest you reread it, this time with your skepticism fully engaged.

If he were an honest scientist he would have stated by name his scale an authoritarian scale. In his overview or summary he would have established what the ends of the scale convey to him. Then he could have built his case.

Instead he propagandized, perhaps recognizing that any authoritarian leftist who stumbled across his tale, would buy it completely. As you did.

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

While were into questions; what did you score on the RWA Scale test? I bet it was over a hundred.Maybe as high as on fifty huh?:2wave:

Why are you trying to make this about me? I am not the one who created a falsehood. He did.

What did you score? Wait. Since he defined his scale to exclude you there was no reason to take his silly test, was there?

If you read his definition you would find that you too fit on his right wing authoritarian scale.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Thats the response I was looking for. Thank you.

Good. I'm glad you agree that conservative authoritarianism has been demonstrated clearly in this thread and that conservatives have whined about being called on it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

"I gave you the most important flaw already. He defined away the left wing and named his ranking scale right wing authoritarian. He perpetrates his fraud from the beginning.

You, based on his right wing authoritarian scale, would be in the mid to high range as a right wing authoritarian because you fall in line with this regime.

He is a propagandist. And look, it worked on you."

He defined it away. He is a propagandist and he convinced you. You are the kind of person he was targeting. You have proven that propaganda will still work just fine on the ones who want to be deceived.

There will always be plenty of willing dupes.

You didn't like it because it called you out on what you are, something that you don't want to admit. Denial is a terrible thing. Shame that it has taken hold of you.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Keep up the good work.

No problem. Pointing out your defeats is certainly enjoyable.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

He admitted within the first few pages that he found no indications of left wing authoritarianism. And of course if one selects just the right definition, one designed to provide propaganda to other leftists, it all just falls into place.

Once I saw his fraud I saw no reason to go any further. He is no scientist. He is just another propagandist.

I read his questions. If one accepts the his premise that his questions allow one to discern varying levels of authoritarianism then one will be driven to accept his conclusions. You read his propaganda. How did he confirm that his goofy questions measure what he claims they measure?

Once caught in a gross deception why would anyone bother to read any further. He had to give his book away. It has no value.

You went in with a preconceived notion. And when that notion was shown to be proven false, and right wing authoritarianism was shown to be prevailing, the cognitive dissonance that this caused was far too much for you. You NEEDED to dismiss the entire study. If you didn't, it meant your entire premise was wrong (which it is) something that you did not want to accept.

 

[US Conservative]

Good. I'm glad you agree that conservative authoritarianism has been demonstrated clearly in this thread and that conservatives have whined about being called on it.

Keep the irony coming.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Keep the irony coming.

You're the one posting irony. I'm just pointing it out.

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

You didn't like it because it called you out on what you are, something that you don't want to admit. Denial is a terrible thing. Shame that it has taken hold of you.

I have given you my objections. They are legitimate. They also explain why his propaganda piece cannot sell.

He could redo his work. Or he could have me do it for him. I would not use a political term like right wing authoritarianism to mean something not political. He did. Why do you think a radical, left wing professor would do such a thing? There is no need to answer. My question is rhetorical.

You need to stop being so nasty. It gains you nothing beyond contempt.

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: Authoritarian Liberals: A window into the soul of a Leftist

"He admitted within the first few pages that he found no indications of left wing authoritarianism. And of course if one selects just the right definition, one designed to provide propaganda to other leftists, it all just falls into place.

Once I saw his fraud I saw no reason to go any further. He is no scientist. He is just another propagandist.

I read his questions. If one accepts the his premise that his questions allow one to discern varying levels of authoritarianism then one will be driven to accept his conclusions. You read his propaganda. How did he confirm that his goofy questions measure what he claims they measure?

Once caught in a gross deception why would anyone bother to read any further. He had to give his book away. It has no value."

You went in with a preconceived notion. And when that notion was shown to be proven false, and right wing authoritarianism was shown to be prevailing, the cognitive dissonance that this caused was far too much for you. You NEEDED to dismiss the entire study. If you didn't, it meant your entire premise was wrong (which it is) something that you did not want to accept.

In addition to your other failings now you believe you can read minds and are a mental health care professional? Awesome.

I can tell from your ignorant comments that you either failed to read or failed to understand his definition of right wing authoritarianism. I suspect it is a bit of both but only you will know for certain.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

What is it about liberty and freedom that frightens you?

Corporate charters do not take away liberty or freedom for individuals. It actually empowers individuals when a large organization does something that harms the public.

 

[Misterveritis]

Corporate charters do not take away liberty or freedom for individuals. It actually empowers individuals when a large organization does something that harms the public.

Right. Your argument is that left wing authoritarians will decide who can do business. Given your history I am not surprised. Statism is always an ugly thing.

If a corporation is doing harm the free market will take care of the problem.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Right. Your argument is that left wing authoritarians will decide who can do business. Given your history I am not surprised. Statism is always an ugly thing.

If a corporation is doing harm the free market will take care of the problem.

Isn't that the gist of the whole debate? Right hand authoritarians not wanting government to have public safety laws on the books? Entities don't have a conscience. Sometimes profit motive can be detrimental to the public's health, wealth and safety. That is why we have rules and regulations. They are there simply to protect the public's interest.

 

[Misterveritis]

"Right. Your argument is that left wing authoritarians will decide who can do business. Given your history I am not surprised. Statism is always an ugly thing.

If a corporation is doing harm the free market will take care of the problem."

Isn't that the gist of the whole debate? Right hand authoritarians not wanting government to have public safety laws on the books? Entities don't have a conscience. Sometimes profit motive can be detrimental to the public's health, wealth and safety. That is why we have rules and regulations. They are there simply to protect the public's interest.

Shall we evaluate your statements?

Who decides if a corporation's profit motive, is detrimental to the public's health, wealth and safety? There should be no role for the federal government as it has no policing powers granted to it in the Constitution. Should the state authorities then decide? How do we keep them honest? The power to regulate offers the opportunity for much mischief. The federal government shakes down companies for billions of dollars. If you want proof evaluate the number of multi-millionairess who are in the Congress. How did H. Reid become a multi-millionaire on his small senate salary?

The public is not served when politicians decide who can be in business and who cannot be.

So who should decide? All of us through our individual actions. If we like what a company offers we buy. If not we buy elsewhere. I, for example, will never again buy a GM product. Ever. If enough of us believe as I do that General Electric is benefitting from crony capitalism then it will eventually fail.

No politician or unaccountable government agency should wield the kinds of powers you want for them. Eventually they will come for you.

 

[Libertie76]

Isn't that the gist of the whole debate? Right hand authoritarians not wanting government to have public safety laws on the books? Entities don't have a conscience. Sometimes profit motive can be detrimental to the public's health, wealth and safety. That is why we have rules and regulations. They are there simply to protect the public's interest.

You're seriously saying profit motives can be detrimental to public health, but do you understand that programs such as the federal reserve act and the 16th ammendment are all acts and laws to insure profit for the federal government and the private bankers? The obama administration has been the biggest wall street administration in the HISTORY of america, the socialist ideas of the banker bailouts and such are literal transfers of wealth form the middle low class to the high class. Everything the federal government has ever touched has turned into the literal sucking dry of the people of this country and many others and the answer to stop profit motivation and restore public health is more regulation? These regulations got us into this economic crisis our country is facing today, These big government policies have caused our nation to be exposed to international threats the answer is no way shape or form more government regulations, the answer is more freedoms take away from the government, the policies of the federal government is behind every catastrophe we face today. And remember we have not practiced true capitalism for over 100 years, so this mess we are in we can not blame capitalism considering the economy has had government control and restirctions and sanctions and subsidies and all sorts of other things including the inflation and the interest rates in the nation. We get rid of big government we get rid of these issues.

 

[Bradg]

Modern liberalism is inherently authoritarian. Its consequentialist worldview, coupled with its constant denial of objective reality, leads it to being an imposing ideology, and one that dangerously threatens individual liberty and forces unnatural equality. The ideology has all but abandoned the writings of the original liberals and Whigs, the influence of the Magna Carta, English common law, and the other great documents advocating the restriction of the scope and power of the government, in favor of bureaucracy, mediocracy and collectivism, in other words the therapeutical welfare state.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

"Right. Your argument is that left wing authoritarians will decide who can do business. Given your history I am not surprised. Statism is always an ugly thing.

If a corporation is doing harm the free market will take care of the problem."

Shall we evaluate your statements?

Who decides if a corporation's profit motive, is detrimental to the public's health, wealth and safety? There should be no role for the federal government as it has no policing powers granted to it in the Constitution. Should the state authorities then decide? How do we keep them honest? The power to regulate offers the opportunity for much mischief. The federal government shakes down companies for billions of dollars. If you want proof evaluate the number of multi-millionairess who are in the Congress. How did H. Reid become a multi-millionaire on his small senate salary?

The public is not served when politicians decide who can be in business and who cannot be.

So who should decide? All of us through our individual actions. If we like what a company offers we buy. If not we buy elsewhere. I, for example, will never again buy a GM product. Ever. If enough of us believe as I do that General Electric is benefitting from crony capitalism then it will eventually fail.

No politician or unaccountable government agency should wield the kinds of powers you want for them. Eventually they will come for you.

If a corporation is found in violation of a law, they get their charter revoked. It sets a precedent that there are consequences to polluting our water, poisoning our food supply....in other words, harming the public.

After the American Revolution sovereign power was allegedly transferred from a monarch to “We the people.”

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You're seriously saying profit motives can be detrimental to public health, but do you understand that programs such as the federal reserve act and the 16th ammendment are all acts and laws to insure profit for the federal government and the private bankers? The obama administration has been the biggest wall street administration in the HISTORY of america, the socialist ideas of the banker bailouts and such are literal transfers of wealth form the middle low class to the high class. Everything the federal government has ever touched has turned into the literal sucking dry of the people of this country and many others and the answer to stop profit motivation and restore public health is more regulation? These regulations got us into this economic crisis our country is facing today, These big government policies have caused our nation to be exposed to international threats the answer is no way shape or form more government regulations, the answer is more freedoms take away from the government, the policies of the federal government is behind every catastrophe we face today. And remember we have not practiced true capitalism for over 100 years, so this mess we are in we can not blame capitalism considering the economy has had government control and restirctions and sanctions and subsidies and all sorts of other things including the inflation and the interest rates in the nation. We get rid of big government we get rid of these issues.

If you are referring to the subprime mortgage debacle, it was deregulations of the banking/investment industry that caused much of it.

 

[Libertie76]

If you are referring to the subprime mortgage debacle, it was deregulations of the banking/investment industry that caused much of it.

Nope you are wrong, what happened is alan greenspan lowered interest rates down to about 1 percent and then when everybody started buying and buying and buying and spending money, that doesnt exist i might add. Then after that happened he spiked the interest rates back up to about 5.6 percent within around 5 months which basically caused the housing bubble to burst. So what initially happens which is what the FED reserve is known for, is they literally create bubbles of economics and then even bursting them obviously on purpose to reap the benefits on the interest rates. This is what happens when private industries such as the banking cartels are granted free monopolization by the federal government. Its big government that allows this falsehood to continue.