Is the left becoming more and more authoritarian?

ALiberalModerate · Jan 4, 2015

ocean515 said:
Adding credibility to your OP, consider the fact the C.A.R.B., the evil twin to the EPA, is allowed to set environmental policy and standards that are far beyond those set on a national basis.

Why? Because they go farther and effectively set national standards all citizens must live by, since, for example, a car company can't afford to manufacture vehicles under two different sets of standards.

Normally, a separate set of environmental standards would not be allowed by a state, except liberals want the more controlling standards, so they allow a single state to establish what in effect becomes national policy.

That can only be viewed as a liberal effort in a minority position imposing control on the unrepresented majority, whether they like it or not. Proof positive of their authoritarian views and objectives.

Wait, wait, so you are saying that states should not be able to set their own policies based upon what is best for that state's citizen's interests, and instead those policies should be centralized and controlled by the federal government in a one size fits all solution.. This in a thread where the right winger in the OP is bitching about left wing authoritarianism. Oh the irony...

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 4, 2015

PeteEU said:
LOL it is the right that is becoming more and more authoritarian and has been for decades. Everything from denying rights to minorities to GITMO and the Patriot Act.. all acts by the American Taliban Right.

You do know obama expanded domestic spying and the patriot act, right?

GITMO closed yet?

the republocrats are becoming more authoritatian.

MMC · Jan 4, 2015

Unrepresented said:
You thought that rhetoric and ridicule was a substantive OP. You set the bar at roughly tripping height to begin with.

A Bar Cmon' now. :2razz:

ocean515 · Jan 4, 2015

SouthernDemocrat said:
Wait, wait, so you are saying that states should not be able to set their own policies based upon what is best for that state's citizen's interests, and instead those policies should be centralized and controlled by the federal government in a one size fits all solution.. This is a thread where the right winger in the OP is bitching about left wing authoritarianism. Oh the irony...

The irony may be that you thought you understood something about federal standards, the relationship of those standards to state laws, and thought you could post something intelligent on the subject.

MMC · Jan 4, 2015

rocket88 said:
This could also apply to the OP. Strange, isn't it?

Nah 88 :2wave: Sorry I just can't see USC working for BO peep. :lol:

Redress · Jan 4, 2015

SouthernDemocrat said:
No one is claiming that the government has the right to force a church to perform a same sex marriage. It's a straw man argument. The only time this issue even remotely came up was with a for profit wedding chapel in Idaho, not a church. Churches have always been free to recognize whatever marriages they choose. For example, if you divorce and remarry, the government will recognize your second marriage, but the Catholic Church will not. Similarly, if you live in a state that legally recognizes same sex marriage, the government will recognize that marriage while the local Pentecostal Church probably won't.

I find it ironic that the right wingers are accusing the left of authoritarianism when Social Conservatism by its very definition is an authoritarian ideology.

You are a little off on what happened with the Hitching Post chapel in Idaho. The full story ius hilarious and nothing at all like it was presented at first. It is a good example of claim a controversy because people never catch the fact checks. Here are the two most relevant articles:

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Gridley wrote that his office has responded in the past to questions from the Knapps about their business - registered as a for-profit limited liability company with the Idaho Secretary of State's office. He admitted that the Knapps were told by his office that if a complaint was filed against them for refusing to provide service to gay individuals seeking to marry, they would likely be in violation of the city's ordinance, based on their corporate status.
Violation of the anti-discrimination law is a misdemeanor with a fine as steep as $1,000, and as long as six months in jail.
Gridley also noted that on Oct. 6, the Knapps filed an LLC operating agreement with the state indicating that the Hitching Post is a "religious organization." He told the Knapps' attorney in the letter that if the Knapps are "truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation" they would be specifically exempted from the city ordinance.
"Their lawsuit was something of a surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation," Gridley wrote.

And a little later: Hitching Post exempt - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

A Massachusetts woman filed a complaint with Coeur d'Alene city police Thursday claiming she called the Hitching Post that morning and was refused a same-sex wedding.
It was the first time the city's anti-discrimination ordinance was cited in a report to police. The ordinance makes denying employment, housing and other "public accommodations" based on sexual orientation a misdemeanor offense.

"After reviewing the allegations and investigation, the (city) prosecutor has declined to pursue criminal charges because the Hitching Post is a religious corporation that is exempt from the city's anti-discrimination ordinance," states a press release issued Friday afternoon by the city's communications coordinator.

So yeah, the Hitching Post chapel filed a lawsuit because they claimed they where being forced to do something that they where never forced to do. BUt that did not slow people down from still thinking a church had been forced to perform gay weddings...

disneydude · Jan 4, 2015

The OP sounds like extreme paranoia to me.

ALiberalModerate · Jan 4, 2015

ocean515 said:
The irony may be that you thought you understood something about federal standards, the relationship of those standards to state laws, and thought you could post something intelligent on the subject.

An EPA standard creates a baseline standard. States and localities have always been free to establish more stringent environmental standards for areas in their jurisdiction if local conditions require stronger standards. To argue that all environmental policy should be centrally controlled by the federal government regardless of state and local conditions is the height of authoritarianism. For example, the federal Acid Rain Program set a federal baseline policy for mitigating acid rain. However, some states have much stronger controls than the federal government. Reason being is that those states tend to have a lot of granite and thus acidification of lakes and streams is a much bigger problem than in states with mostly limestone as the bedrock. A federal policy is still needed however because emissions cross state lines.

Just because a state is large is irrelevant. For example, Texas buys a lot of textbooks so the choices in textbooks that the Texas Department of Education makes impacts smaller states. Should Texas not be able to decide which textbooks it wants to purchase?

PeteEU · Jan 4, 2015

ReverendHellh0und said:
You do know obama expanded domestic spying and the patriot act, right?

That is not true. He just continued what Bush already had implemented.

GITMO closed yet?

Hard to close when the GOP is blocking relocation efforts of the detainees.

ocean515 · Jan 4, 2015

SouthernDemocrat said:
An EPA standard creates a baseline standard. States and localities have always been free to establish more stringent environmental standards for areas in their jurisdiction if local conditions require stronger standards. To argue that all environmental policy should be centrally controlled by the federal government regardless of state and local conditions is the height of authoritarianism. For example, the federal Acid Rain Program set a federal baseline policy for mitigating acid rain. However, some states have much stronger controls than the federal government. Reason being is that those states tend to have a lot of granite and thus acidification of lakes and streams is a much bigger problem than in states with mostly limestone as the bedrock. A federal policy is still needed however because emissions cross state lines.

Just because a state is large is irrelevant. For example, Texas buys a lot of textbooks so the choices in textbooks that the Texas Department of Education makes impacts smaller states. Should Texas not be able to decide which textbooks it wants to purchase?

Is that so?

Consider the example of motor vehicles, and how a single state is allowed to set what in effect becomes a national standard.

Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Motor Vehicles

With one exception, the responsibility for regulating emissions from new motor vehicles under the CAA rests with the EPA. Section 209(a) of the Act states in part: “No state or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part.”[35] Section 209(b) of the Act provides for the exception; it grants the EPA the authority to waive this prohibition for any state that had adopted emissions standards for new motor vehicles or engines prior to March 30, 1966.[36] California is the only state that meets this eligibility requirement and is thus the only state in the nation, which can seek to obtain a waiver from the EPA.

Note that the EPA originally denied California's attempt to set it's own standards. Once the current administration took power, and installed it's authoritarian leadership, the EPA changed it's position on the matter.

Authoritarianism is at the heart of the liberal/progressive agenda. How else would the undefined "social justice" agenda be accomplished?

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 4, 2015

PeteEU said:
That is not true. He just continued what Bush already had implemented.

Lets pretend you are right. He continued unabated. are you this partisan?

but no, he expanded it.

ACLU Report: Obama administration expands domestic spying - World Socialist Web Site
A Chronology: How Obama Expanded and Consolidated The Bush-Cheney Domestic Spy Dragnet
The Raw Story | Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program

Hard to close when the GOP is blocking relocation efforts of the detainees.

Why not an executive order as he said he would do?

ALiberalModerate · Jan 4, 2015

ocean515 said:
Is that so?

Consider the example of motor vehicles, and how a single state is allowed to set what in effect becomes a national standard.

Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Motor Vehicles

With one exception, the responsibility for regulating emissions from new motor vehicles under the CAA rests with the EPA. Section 209(a) of the Act states in part: “No state or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part.”[35] Section 209(b) of the Act provides for the exception; it grants the EPA the authority to waive this prohibition for any state that had adopted emissions standards for new motor vehicles or engines prior to March 30, 1966.[36] California is the only state that meets this eligibility requirement and is thus the only state in the nation, which can seek to obtain a waiver from the EPA.

Note that the EPA originally denied California's attempt to set it's own standards. Once the current administration took power, and installed it's authoritarian leadership, the EPA changed it's position on the matter.

Authoritarianism is at the heart of the liberal/progressive agenda. How else would the undefined "social justice" agenda be accomplished?

Because California has unique environmental conditions (specifically in the coastal areas) that require more stringent standards. You can spin it how you want, but you are arguing for centralization while at the same time bitching about authoritarianism. In the case of the original Clean Air Act, California already had standards in place thus it was allowed to petition for wavers (and the Obama Admin is not the first time such wavers were granted).

If you want an example of left wing authoritarianism just look at the PC culture on many university campuses. However, to use the ability of California to set its own environmental standards to better serve its own citizens is an absolutely ridiculous critique of liberal authoritarianism. Decentralization of regulations is the absolute opposite of authoritarianism.

ocean515 · Jan 4, 2015

SouthernDemocrat said:
Because California has unique environmental conditions (specifically in the coastal areas) that require more stringent standards. You can spin it how you want, but you are arguing for centralization while at the same time bitching about authoritarianism. In the case of the original Clean Air Act, California already had standards in place thus it was allowed to petition for wavers (and the Obama Admin is not the first time such wavers were granted).

If you want an example of left wing authoritarianism just look at the PC culture on many university campuses. However, to use the ability of California to set its own environmental standards to better serve its own citizens is an absolutely ridiculous critique of liberal authoritarianism. Decentralization of regulations is the absolute opposite of authoritarianism.

Irony, Part II.

"You can spin it any way you want"

Liberal/progressive California was not allowed to set it's own standards under the Clean Air Act until Obama took office and installed an wack job agency head as Director of the EPA. It then dropped it's opposition, and put in a provision that allowed ONLY California to set standards, something no other state is allowed to do. The actions of the CARB have nothing to do with citizen directives, and the authoritarian position they take receives the blessing of the authoritarian EPA because it allows a single state to set national standards, without the red tape required by the EPA process.

This regulation without representation is one of the foundational efforts of authoritarian liberalism. Are you aware of the EPA's "Environmental Justice" initiative?

It would seem you are not comfortable with the label "authoritarian" being properly connected to liberal/progressivism, but it's connection is reality, and attempting to claim otherwise is a rather futile exercise.

Cardinal · Jan 4, 2015

The really extraordinary thing about this poll is that someone logged out, voted no, cleared their cookies and repeated this action two hundred and thirty one times. Sweet jeebus, somebody get that guy a dog.

eohrnberger · Jan 4, 2015

I voted Yes. Seems to me that the Liberals / Progressives / Democrats have gone from 'this is a good idea, let's promote it' to 'this is a good idea, let's make it mandatory'. That in and of itself, if far more authoritarian in nature and approach.

MMC · Jan 4, 2015

Cardinal said:
The really extraordinary thing about this poll is that someone logged out, voted no, cleared their cookies and repeated this action two hundred and thirty one times. Sweet jeebus, somebody get that guy a dog.

Meh, I thought it was you being the 63rd reply giving it the 421st view.

Cardinal · Jan 4, 2015

MMC said:
Meh, I thought it was you being the 63rd reply giving it the 421st view.

Actually I was. I was just curious if I'd have to go through the dreary task of having to clear my cookies before voting again. Answer: yup.

Cardinal · Jan 4, 2015

eohrnberger said:
I voted Yes. Seems to me that the Liberals / Progressives / Democrats have gone from 'this is a good idea, let's promote it' to 'this is a good idea, let's make it mandatory'. That in and of itself, if far more authoritarian in nature and approach.

Except that within this thread the definition of "authoritarian" has been expanded to include any policy that Liberals want. So going by that expanded definition any policy that Conservatives want is de facto "authoritarian."

It's a silly thread, though not surprising when you consider the source.

MMC · Jan 4, 2015

Cardinal said:
Actually I was. I was just curious if I'd have to go through the dreary task of having to clear my cookies before voting again. Answer: yup.

Only if they are fudge cookies. Just sayin! :mrgreen:

eohrnberger · Jan 4, 2015

Cardinal said:
Except that within this thread the definition of "authoritarian" has been expanded to include any policy that Liberals want. So going by that expanded definition any policy that Conservatives want is de facto "authoritarian."

It's a silly thread, though not surprising when you consider the source.

I'd disagree that the present definition of "authoritarian" is anything that Liberals want.
What's so authoritarian about let's say a carbon pollution reduction tax credit?
However, a carbon cap and trade tax is far more authoritarian.

Being "authoritarian" with a policy or proposal isn't a 'what' about the policy or proposal, it's the 'how' part of it.

I agree with you that there are authoritarian elements or features in the policies and proposals that both parties support.

I dislike authoritarian policies and proposals, full stop. Who want's their arm twisted?

rabbitcaebannog · Jan 4, 2015

Okay, I'm a left leaning American and I voted yes. For the most part American policies are more right authoritarian in nature no matter what party the President is under. For the past 8 decades the Democratic policies have been going far more right. Obama's top down educational policies are proof positive of that including many of his other policies like spying etc.....a true leftist would be a Bernie Sanders, certainly neither Obama or Hillary fit that bill.

AGENT J · Jan 4, 2015

A thread that fails in the very first post, AWESOME!

Im independent and no

pbrauer · Jan 4, 2015

US Conservative said:
We hear from lefties how anyone who disagrees with them are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, etc-in other words modern lefty versions of the word heretic. The left declares what speech is appropriate (PC). They force Americans to engage in interstate commerce. They have also become increasingly violent, reference the recent officer involved shootings, occupy, etc. All with no new ideas-just rhetoric to explain their policy failures.

There have even been calls to arrest those who disagree with them on global warming... Arrest Climate-Change Deniers

We are told (by them) that "the debate is over". :doh

Is the left becoming more and more (nakedly) authoritarian?

I am a left leaning American and I think you make your polls far too compicated. If you don't know whose is left or right leaning by now you arn't paying attention.

Moot · Jan 4, 2015

US Conservative said:
Im discussing the lefts move towards authoritarianism and seeing who agrees. Seem's like a legitimate political topic to me.

Your only example of left wing authoritarianism gone wild is what....interstate commerce? lol

Yet, they aren't the ones trying to force the 'keystone pipeline' on states, tax payers and property owners that don't want or need it, are they?

PS.... your poll seems to have gone wild. How is it possible that 330 people have voted on it since this morning and the overwhelming majority, both left and right say....."no" ?

SlevinKelevra · Jan 4, 2015

left / right is simplistic

even the 2d "political compass" is too simplistic really, a 3d spectrum space would be more useful.

but that said, if you replace "left" with "democrat", the answer would be yes; since the "right" (GOP) is pushing more authoritarian, the "left" must do so too to reach the "center"

Is the left becoming more and more authoritarian?

Is the American left becoming more and more authoritarian?

Im a right leaning American, yes.

Im a left leaning American, yes.

Im not American, yes.

Im a right leaning American, no.

Im a left leaning American, no.

Im not American, no.

Pragmatist

I don't respect you.

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Pragmatist

I don't respect you.

Pragmatist

Respected On All Sides

Respected On All Sides

Respected On All Sides

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Sage

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency