Republicans kick some Democrat butt

[Dad2three]

Shit....never realized you guys were such sore winners

Actually we are enjoying the win, enjoying the fact that the american people are demonstrating their desire to remove the dems from power, and to stop obama's destructive agenda.

Now, the GOP has the chance to really get some things done. I hope they don't blow it.

I wish them luck

really? come on, be truthful just once in your posting life.

I would like to see Republicans actually concerned with governing again......kind of like in the old days

I'd like to see Republicans vow to repeal 5 federal laws per day.

Cool, would LOVE for them to be extinct by 2016

 

[Dad2three]

Shit....never realized you guys were such sore winners

Actually we are enjoying the win, enjoying the fact that the american people are demonstrating their desire to remove the dems from power, and to stop obama's destructive agenda.

Now, the GOP has the chance to really get some things done. I hope they don't blow it.

I wish them luck

really? come on, be truthful just once in your posting life.

I would like to see Republicans actually concerned with governing again......kind of like in the old days

and I would like to see the same from the dems--------------like the old days of Reagan/O'Neill and Clinton/Newt.

But I guarantee that obama will resist, deny, spin, deflect, and delay rather than look for the middle ground.

his ideology is more important to him than the country.

Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett: Face it, Obama is a conservative
Just look at the president's record, Bartlett says. This is no progressive


Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett Face it Obama is a conservative - Salon.com



Obama Is a Republican
He’s the heir to Richard Nixon, not Saul Alinsky.
By Bruce Bartlett

Obama Is a Republican The American Conservative

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you jump in mid conversation and

1) Complain it's off topic, AFTER you are shown you are full of shit

You don't post "off topic,' you randomly fling shit - you are a feral baboon.

You have no clue what the topic is - ever. You hope to derail conversations with the cut & paste idiocy you post, over and over,

Seriously, if I want to know George Soros' talking point, I'll log on to ThinkProgress myself - i don't need you to cut & paste that shit here.

Oh, and you have never "shown" anything to anyone, you just cut & paste with no real grasp of what you are posting.

2) NYTimes fact based story is a 'hate site' from G Soros? lol

3) Of course, Denmark can pay a living wage to their employees, of Starbuck's. McD's, Burger King, etc but IF they paid a living wage in AmeriKa, Corps would be going out of Biz left and right?

Gawwwd you simpletons and your hate and divisiveness are simply amazing

To the looter, costs are irrelevant. That a company makes a profit is just greed. McDonald's should be run for the benefit of the workers, not to earn profits for the share holders...

Double the cost of labor, and either prices are raised significantly, or owners invest in capital costs instead of labor costs.

Of course this has nothing to do with this thread - you are just tossing out talking points - flinging shit like the feral baboon that you are.

Talk about tossing out talking points, lol

So NO you can't actually refute that

1) Fast food pays a min of $20 an hour in Denmark
2) Cost of living is only 30% higher
) Somehow Corps like McD's, Starbucks, Burger King, Etc have businesses there


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/b...-served-in-denmark-fast-food-restaurants.html

NEXT

 

[Dad2three]

You mean as they suck on the teet of big Gov't SS and Medicare?

Comrade, I went to the dentist last month. I pulled out my Blue Cross card and had my insurance pay.

According to you, I was "sucking on the teet" of the insurance, even though I pay dearly for it?

Social Security is a shitty system, poorly run with marginal returns, BUT those who get retirement benefits PAID for those benefits, they aren't "sucking any teet," They paid every pay period for a pension plan, it ain't charity - it sure the **** ain't welfare.

Since SS and Medicare are pay0Go systems, A S DESIGNED, yes seniors ARE sucking off the teet of Big Gov't. Thanks for playing

 

[Antares]

Actually we are enjoying the win, enjoying the fact that the american people are demonstrating their desire to remove the dems from power, and to stop obama's destructive agenda.

Now, the GOP has the chance to really get some things done. I hope they don't blow it.

I wish them luck

really? come on, be truthful just once in your posting life.

I would like to see Republicans actually concerned with governing again......kind of like in the old days

and I would like to see the same from the dems--------------like the old days of Reagan/O'Neill and Clinton/Newt.

But I guarantee that obama will resist, deny, spin, deflect, and delay rather than look for the middle ground.

his ideology is more important to him than the country.

Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett: Face it, Obama is a conservative
Just look at the president's record, Bartlett says. This is no progressive


Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett Face it Obama is a conservative - Salon.com



Obama Is a Republican
He’s the heir to Richard Nixon, not Saul Alinsky.
By Bruce Bartlett

Obama Is a Republican The American Conservative

Some guy claims Bammy is a "conservative" therefore that makes it so.

God you are an idiot.

 

[Dad2three]

Tell us the last time a two term democrat president had a follow up democrat president, Job. Tell us all about it.

Yes, AmeriKa people ARE dumb. I guess we can't fix stupid with soooo many red staters voting against their best interests?

As far as they are concerned they are voting for their best interests. Freedom from Big government.

You mean as they suck on the teet of big Gov't SS and Medicare?

You got any proof of that?

You don't know SS/Medicare are pay-go systems? REALLY? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Poverty is gone eh?

Don't like to read huh?

 

[Antares]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Poverty is gone eh?

Don't like to read huh?

I read it son
So if I went and got a Fox News article that said Bammy was "progressive" you'd buy it?

 

[Dad2three]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

ANOTHER conservative who HATES to read and think. Shocking

We might think that 4% actually living in poverty is too much but it’s pretty good for government work. And it’s also markedly different from the usual poverty numbers that get bandied about of 15% or so


...For we do not count the giving of all of those goods and services, “in kind benefits” as reducing poverty at all.

That’s how come we spend one trillion a year or so on reducing poverty and we seem to have just as much of it as we always did. Simply because we’re not counting the poverty reduction we’re buying with our trillion.

It’s entirely possible that poverty could have been beaten another way, or that it could have been done better or worse. But the truth is that the Great Society did actually abolish poverty, to the extent that we’re probably not going to reach the last few percent under any system at all. Our problem is that we just don’t seem to realise it.

The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

I'm trying to figure out what exactly "big government" means to a right winger. I lean left on most issues, but to me, big oppressive government is big intrusive government agencies that spy on their own citizens. Big spending, to me, is wasting trillions of dollars on useless unnecessary wars. Just trying to break the code.

Well, then you should ask a right winger. Stopped reading here since the question wasn't for me.

Sorry. I had you pegged as one. But what is "big government" to you?

I'm a libertarian. It's sad that you have to ask that. Big government is more spending and more regulations. What is it that confuses liberals about that? What else would it be?

My definition of 'big government' is CONSERVATIVES/LIBERTARIANS in charge of it, who don't 'believe in it' therefore it fails, EVERY TIME!

Your version of BIG GOVERNMENT is STALINIST in nature and look how well that worked out for the Russians.

Sure, it's the liberals who favor authoritarian governments *shaking head*

How's that 'free trade' thing with China? Or US relying on Saudi?




Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it

Right-wing authoritarianism is measured by the RWA scale. The first scored item on the scale states, "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us." People who strongly agree with this are showing a tendency toward authoritarian submission (Saint Reagan anyone?) (Our country desperately needs a mighty leader), authoritarian aggression (who will do what has to be done to destroy), and conventionalism (the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us).

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Antares]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

ANOTHER conservative who HATES to read and think. Shocking

We might think that 4% actually living in poverty is too much but it’s pretty good for government work. And it’s also markedly different from the usual poverty numbers that get bandied about of 15% or so


...For we do not count the giving of all of those goods and services, “in kind benefits” as reducing poverty at all.

That’s how come we spend one trillion a year or so on reducing poverty and we seem to have just as much of it as we always did. Simply because we’re not counting the poverty reduction we’re buying with our trillion.

It’s entirely possible that poverty could have been beaten another way, or that it could have been done better or worse. But the truth is that the Great Society did actually abolish poverty, to the extent that we’re probably not going to reach the last few percent under any system at all. Our problem is that we just don’t seem to realise it.

The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

"Our problem is that we just don’t seem to realise it."

Meaning that we need to just accept "the new normal".

You aren't real bright pops.

 

[1776]

go back to eating shit, loser.

Well, then you should ask a right winger. Stopped reading here since the question wasn't for me.

Sorry. I had you pegged as one. But what is "big government" to you?

I'm a libertarian. It's sad that you have to ask that. Big government is more spending and more regulations. What is it that confuses liberals about that? What else would it be?

My definition of 'big government' is CONSERVATIVES/LIBERTARIANS in charge of it, who don't 'believe in it' therefore it fails, EVERY TIME!

Your version of BIG GOVERNMENT is STALINIST in nature and look how well that worked out for the Russians.

Sure, it's the liberals who favor authoritarian governments *shaking head*

How's that 'free trade' thing with China? Or US relying on Saudi?




Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it

Right-wing authoritarianism is measured by the RWA scale. The first scored item on the scale states, "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us." People who strongly agree with this are showing a tendency toward authoritarian submission (Saint Reagan anyone?) (Our country desperately needs a mighty leader), authoritarian aggression (who will do what has to be done to destroy), and conventionalism (the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us).

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

I wish them luck

really? come on, be truthful just once in your posting life.

I would like to see Republicans actually concerned with governing again......kind of like in the old days

and I would like to see the same from the dems--------------like the old days of Reagan/O'Neill and Clinton/Newt.

But I guarantee that obama will resist, deny, spin, deflect, and delay rather than look for the middle ground.

his ideology is more important to him than the country.

Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett: Face it, Obama is a conservative
Just look at the president's record, Bartlett says. This is no progressive


Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett Face it Obama is a conservative - Salon.com



Obama Is a Republican
He’s the heir to Richard Nixon, not Saul Alinsky.
By Bruce Bartlett

Obama Is a Republican The American Conservative

Some guy claims Bammy is a "conservative" therefore that makes it so.

God you are an idiot.

Weird, you mean we should listen to YOUR posit over 'some guy' who is considered MODERATE today instead of right wing jack-offs like Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc?

PLEASE tell me Obama having tax rates over 10% lower than Ronnie did for his ENTIRE Prez to this point, means something to you? Yep, that gawddamn socialist Reagan had a top rate of 50% his first 6 years!

Or the FACT that Clinton was actually impeached and the GOPers spent $40+ million to prove he had a BJ?


BUT OBAMA IS EXTREME? lol

 

[westwall]

It boils down to getting rid of the Oligarchy Club in both parties and Mitch is very much one of them in that elite's club.
I don't see that happening in just 2 years.
The people themselves need to vote them all out or we will never have true reform that will be for the people rather than for the few who control everything.

It would help if the middle class would stop voting against their own best interest.

The net worth of the middle class has gone DOWN under Obama. Thus they WERE voting for their best interests.

 

[Contumacious]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running the same candidates a s democrats in order to be ELECTABLE.


No one single Republican promised to abolish the welfare/warfare police state.


So , it will be business as usual.

.

 

[Dad2three]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Poverty is gone eh?

Don't like to read huh?

I read it son
So if I went and got a Fox News article that said Bammy was "progressive" you'd buy it?

PLEASE get it from a MODERATE who worked on Carter, Clinton or Obama's staff? Pretty please?

 

[Dad2three]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

ANOTHER conservative who HATES to read and think. Shocking

We might think that 4% actually living in poverty is too much but it’s pretty good for government work. And it’s also markedly different from the usual poverty numbers that get bandied about of 15% or so


...For we do not count the giving of all of those goods and services, “in kind benefits” as reducing poverty at all.

That’s how come we spend one trillion a year or so on reducing poverty and we seem to have just as much of it as we always did. Simply because we’re not counting the poverty reduction we’re buying with our trillion.

It’s entirely possible that poverty could have been beaten another way, or that it could have been done better or worse. But the truth is that the Great Society did actually abolish poverty, to the extent that we’re probably not going to reach the last few percent under any system at all. Our problem is that we just don’t seem to realise it.

The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

"Our problem is that we just don’t seem to realise it."

Meaning that we need to just accept "the new normal".

You aren't real bright pops.

So not only do you not like reading stories linked, you have problems with comprehension of them. Got it

 

[Antares]

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Poverty is gone eh?

Don't like to read huh?

I read it son
So if I went and got a Fox News article that said Bammy was "progressive" you'd buy it?

PLEASE get it from a MODERATE who worked on Carter, Clinton or Obama's staff? Pretty please?

You do realize that your approval of a source isn't needed?

 

[Antares]

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

ANOTHER conservative who HATES to read and think. Shocking

We might think that 4% actually living in poverty is too much but it’s pretty good for government work. And it’s also markedly different from the usual poverty numbers that get bandied about of 15% or so


...For we do not count the giving of all of those goods and services, “in kind benefits” as reducing poverty at all.

That’s how come we spend one trillion a year or so on reducing poverty and we seem to have just as much of it as we always did. Simply because we’re not counting the poverty reduction we’re buying with our trillion.

It’s entirely possible that poverty could have been beaten another way, or that it could have been done better or worse. But the truth is that the Great Society did actually abolish poverty, to the extent that we’re probably not going to reach the last few percent under any system at all. Our problem is that we just don’t seem to realise it.

The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

"Our problem is that we just don’t seem to realise it."

Meaning that we need to just accept "the new normal".

You aren't real bright pops.

So not only do you not like reading stories linked, you have problems with comprehension of them. Got it

That is a direct quote from your source Dad, and he said it right at the end of the Article......

 

[Dad2three]

go back to eating shit, loser.

Sorry. I had you pegged as one. But what is "big government" to you?

I'm a libertarian. It's sad that you have to ask that. Big government is more spending and more regulations. What is it that confuses liberals about that? What else would it be?

My definition of 'big government' is CONSERVATIVES/LIBERTARIANS in charge of it, who don't 'believe in it' therefore it fails, EVERY TIME!

Your version of BIG GOVERNMENT is STALINIST in nature and look how well that worked out for the Russians.

Sure, it's the liberals who favor authoritarian governments *shaking head*

How's that 'free trade' thing with China? Or US relying on Saudi?




Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it

Right-wing authoritarianism is measured by the RWA scale. The first scored item on the scale states, "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us." People who strongly agree with this are showing a tendency toward authoritarian submission (Saint Reagan anyone?) (Our country desperately needs a mighty leader), authoritarian aggression (who will do what has to be done to destroy), and conventionalism (the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us).

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Bet you are at the top of the ticket for ther GOP in 2016, with all the bla, bla, bla you posit