conservatives 'followers'

[Spider]

Despite degrees and bullshít , a degree that all you have to do is show up everyday and get a degree in following Ha! ..........
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html
In an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, former Nixon counsel John Dean explained a largely unknown 50 year academic study. The data shows that conservatives are much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.

Dean discovered the ongoing study while researching his new book, "Conservative Without Conscience."

Dean believes that the study helps to explain why the Republican party has been driven further right.

A rush transcript follows the video.

Rush Transcript

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: There is an extraordinary amount of academic work that you quote in the book. A lot of it is very unsettling. It deals with psychological principles that are frightening and may have faced other nations at other times. In German and Italy in the 30's, come into mind in particular. But, how does it apply now? To what degree should it scare us and to what degree is it something that might be forestalled?

DEAN: To me, it was something of an epiphany to run into this information. First, I'd never read about it before. I sort of worked my way into it until I found it. It's not generally known out there, what's going on. I think, from the best we can tell, these people -- the followers -- a few of them will change their ways when the realize that they are doing -- not even aware of what they are doing. The leaders, those inclined to dominate, they're not going to change for a second. They're going to be what they are. So, by and large, the reason I write about this is, I think we need to understand it. We need to realize that when you take a certain step of vote a certain way, heading in a certain direction, where this can end up. So, it's sort of a cautionary note. It's a warning as to where this can go. Other countries have gone there.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.

OLBERMANN: Let me read something from the book. Let me read this one quote then I have a question about it. "Many people believe that neoconservatives and many Republicans appreciate that they are more likely to maintain influence and control of the presidency if the nation remains under ever-increasing threats of terrorism, so they have no hesitation in pursuing policies that can provoke the potential terrorists throughout the world." That's ominous, not just in the sense that authoritarians involved in conservatism and now Republicanism would politicize counter-terror here which we've already argued that point on many occasions. Are you actually saying that they would set up -- encourage terrorism from other countries to set them up as a boogey man to have, again, that group to hate here -- more importantly, afraid of?

DEAN: What I'm saying is that there has been fear mongering, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time in this country. It happened early in the cold war. We got accustomed to it. We learned to live with it. We learned to understand what it was about and get it in proportion. We haven't done that yet with terrorism. And this administration is really capitalizing on it and using it for its' political advantage. No question, the academic testing show -- the empirical evidence shows -- when people are frightened, they tend to go to these authority figures. They tend to become more conservative. So, it's paid off for them politically to do this.

OLBERMANN: This all seems to require, not merely, venality or immorality but a kind of amorality where morals don't enter into it at all. "We're right. So anything we do to preserve our process, our power -- even if it by itself is wrong -- it's right in the greater sense." It's that wonderful rationalization that everybody uses in small doses throughout their lives. But, is this idea, this sort of psychological sort of review of the whole thing, does it apply to Dick Cheney? Does it apply to George Bush? Does it apply to Bill Frist? Who are the names on these authoritarian figures?

DEAN: You just named three that I discuss at some length in the book. I focused in the book, not on the Bush Administration and Cheney and The President because they had really been there done that, but what I wanted to understand is what they have done is made it legitimate to have authoritarianism. It was already operating on Capitol Hill after the '94 control by the Republicans in Congress. It recreated the mood. It restructured Congress itself in a very authoritarian style, in the House in particular. The Senate hasn't gone there yet but it's going there because more House members are moving over. This atmosphere is what Bush and Cheney walked into. They are authoritarian personalities. Cheney much more so than Bush. They have made it legitimate and they have taken way past where anybody's ever taken it in the United States.

OLBERMANN: Our society's best defense against that is what? Do we have to hope, as you suggested, the people that follow, wise up and break away from this sort of lockstep salute to, "of course, they're right, of course there are WMDs, of course there are terrorists, of course there is al Qaeda, of course everything is the way the president says it." Or do we rely on the hope that these are fanatics and fanatics always screw up because they would rather believe in their own cause than double-check their own math.

DEAN: The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, "I look at the numbers of the United States and I see about 23% of the population who are pure right-wing authoritarian followers." They're not going to change. They're going to march over the cliff. The best thing to deal with them -- and they're growing, and they have a tremendous influence on Republican politics -- The best defense is understanding them, to realize what they are doing, how they're doing it and how they operate. Then it can be kept in perspective and they can be seen for what they are

[Spider]

Kinda smacks the republicans around a bit ......... Despite degrees ........

[SteveTensi13]

And I guess those who blindly follow the far left DNC could be best described as lemmings!!

[Spider]

And I guess those who blindly follow the far left DNC could be best described as lemmings!!
I wont tell you what I realy think , we have this new no personal insults thing going on , so I will just ask you for a link or somthing to back up your claim ....... Funny thing is though I quit listening ot Air America cause I felt they was a mouth piece for the DNC ............ I realy dont need a party to tell me what to think or say ... too bad you couldnt make the same claim ........ PS I realy want to make fun of you .....Damn the no vulgarity rule ...........

[SteveTensi13]

I wont tell you what I realy think , we have this new no personal insults thing going on , so I will just ask you for a link or somthing to back up your claim ....... Funny thing is though I quit listening ot Air America cause I felt they was a mouth piece for the DNC ............ I realy dont need a party to tell me what to think or say ... too bad you couldnt make the same claim ........ PS I realy want to make fun of you .....Damn the no vulgarity rule ...........

No vulgarity rule? Guess we wont be hearing much from LABF.

[spdirty]

I wont tell you what I realy think , we have this new no personal insults thing going on , so I will just ask you for a link or somthing to back up your claim ....... Funny thing is though I quit listening ot Air America cause I felt they was a mouth piece for the DNC ............ I realy dont need a party to tell me what to think or say ... too bad you couldnt make the same claim ........ PS I realy want to make fun of you .....Damn the no vulgarity rule ...........
You obviously havent listened to Malloy have you?

[Spider]

You obviously havent listened to Malloy have you?
Who is Malloy ?

[clarker]

I wont tell you what I realy think , we have this new no personal insults thing going on , so I will just ask you for a link or somthing to back up your claim ....... Funny thing is though I quit listening ot Air America cause I felt they was a mouth piece for the DNC ............ I realy dont need a party to tell me what to think or say ... too bad you couldnt make the same claim ........ PS I realy want to make fun of you .....Damn the no vulgarity rule ...........I would say that you follow the Dems with blind faith, but there are people on this board who do. I'm sure it will not take you 3 guesses who I am thinking of.

I know people from my daily life that are Dems who let the DNC think for them. Same goes for some republican people. I don't think blindly following a political party is exclusive to the Republican party.

[Spider]

I would say that you follow the Dems with blind faith, but there are people on this board who do. I'm sure it will not take you 3 guesses who I am thinking of.

I know people from my daily life that are Dems who let the DNC think for them. Same goes for some republican people. I don't think blindly following a political party is exclusive to the Republican party.
sure you do . remember our Reagan discussion ?
Besides that , I have a firm grasp on what i believe , just so happens to be in the democratic party .........
Do you realy think for one second that anyone can change my mind on anything ?
Funny just a few short years ago , many called me a republican ........... I roasted Clinton , not for a BJ but for NAFTA and Chinia ..........I didnt hear anyone accusing me of toeing the party line then ?
Back in 2001 right here on the mane people thought I was a republican ...... Funny how that works , I am a genius to the side that agrees with me ......

[spdirty]

Who is Malloy ?
Air America host...doesnt go with the DNC...he's waaaaaaaaay more left.

[Spider]

Air America host...doesnt go with the DNC...he's waaaaaaaaay more left.
Probably why I dont listen to him ......... there are 3 guys on the Radio , I listen to and only one of them I believe 100%

[clarker]

sure you do . remember our Reagan discussion ?
Besides that , I have a firm grasp on what i believe , just so happens to be in the democratic party .........
Do you realy think for one second that anyone can change my mind on anything ?
Funny just a few short years ago , many called me a republican ........... I roasted Clinton , not for a BJ but for NAFTA and Chinia ..........I didnt hear anyone accusing me of toeing the party line then ?
Back in 2001 right here on the mane people thought I was a republican ...... Funny how that works , I am a genius to the side that agrees with me ......I wouldn't say you follow the party line. I wasn't talking about you. Your liberal leanings, but I have seen you bust the Dems when you thought they were in the wrong.

I don't think Bush or the current Republicans live up to the ideals that made me want to be a Republican in the first place. I would vote for a Dem in a heart beat right now. Although I won't vote for anyone, of any party just because they scream they hate Bush the loudest.

In the last election I would have voted for John Edwards if he would have got the nom from the Dems.

Anyways back on topic. There are people on this board who are Dems who follow the party line with out fail. They defend any Dem no matter what. That way of thinking is not exclusive to either party.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No vulgarity rule? Guess we wont be hearing much from LABF.

This from a guy who sounds like a more over-the-top version of mAnn Coulter?

Too much. ROFL!

[Spider]

I wouldn't say you follow the party line. I wasn't talking about you. Your liberal leanings, but I have seen you bust the Dems when you thought they were in the wrong.

I don't think Bush or the current Republicans live up to the ideals that made me want to be a Republican in the first place. I would vote for a Dem in a heart beat right now. Although I won't vote for anyone, of any party just because they scream they hate Bush the loudest.

In the last election I would have voted for John Edwards if he would have got the nom from the Dems.

Anyways back on topic. There are people on this board who are Dems who follow the party line with out fail. They defend any Dem no matter what. That way of thinking is not exclusive to either party.
Ok I see what you are saying and you are right to a point , Dems realy dont latch onto a authoritarian leader , where as the study showed Reps will ......

[clarker]

This from a guy who sounds like a more over-the-top version of mAnn Coulter?

Too much. ROFL!mAnn Coulter!!Hilarious! Hilarious! That is classic. Crazy Anny is kinda She-Hulk looking.

[clarker]

Ok I see what you are saying and you are right to a point , Dems realy dont latch onto a authoritarian leader , where as the study showed Reps will ......Really? So there are no Dems who worship Bill Clinton with the blind love? Really? Again, I am not saying your one of them, but they exist.

[clarker]

BTW, I may vote for Edwards in '08 if he gets the Dems nom, depending on who wins the Repubs nom.

[Spider]

Really? So there are no Dems who worship Bill Clinton with the blind love? Really? Again, I am not saying your one of them, but they exist.
Bill Clinton wasnt a authoritarian leader ....... he was a womenizer but not a authoritarian.........

[epicSocialism4tw]

Do you have a link to the study instead of the Dean/Olbermann discussion of the study? I would like to know how they designed this one. "They" are referred to as secretive "academics" in the transcript above.

If their goal was to imply that there are folks that blindly follow whatever cause they have reasoned to be just (however they have come to that conclusion), and that there are a large portions of the population who willingly place their trust in their leaders, then I would agree with that in general terms. There are alot of noncogniscient, inactive fools in the world. We have our fair share of them in America. I have seen them burn bras, I have seen them selling crack, I have seen them spinning in circles on LSD in the Height, I have seen them drive trucks, I have seen them in corporate meetings, and I have seen them adorn white hoods. They are everywhere.

Anyhoo, back to the study...

The study was admittedly 50 years in length. I think that it's safe to say that several of the tenets of liberalism and conservativism have changed over that span of time in America. The political differences between a voter who voted for Eisenhower in '52 (republican) and GW Bush in '02 are quite distinct. In fact, California, NY, Florida, and more modern Democratic States all voted Republican while the south was largely Democratic.

I understand that its a psychological survey that intends to show psychological traits that lend themselves to a certain leadership style and how those things are manifest in politics, but the issue is quite complex to boil down into the results of one study done by secret academicians.

[Spider]

Do you have a link to the study instead of the Dean/Olbermann discussion of the study? I would like to know how they designed this one. "They" are referred to as secretive "academics" in the transcript above.

If their goal was to imply that there are folks that blindly follow whatever cause they have reasoned to be just (however they have come to that conclusion), and that there are a large portions of the population who willingly place their trust in their leaders, then I would agree with that in general terms. There are alot of noncogniscient, inactive fools in the world. We have our fair share of them in America. I have seen them burn bras, I have seen them selling crack, I have seen them spinning in circles on LSD in the Height, I have seen them drive trucks, I have seen them in corporate meetings, and I have seen them adorn white hoods. They are everywhere.

Anyhoo, back to the study...

The study was admittedly 50 years in length. I think that it's safe to say that several of the tenets of liberalism and conservativism have changed over that span of time in America. The political differences between a voter who voted for Eisenhower in '52 (republican) and GW Bush in '02 are quite distinct. In fact, California, NY, Florida, and more modern Democratic States all voted Republican while the south was largely Democratic.

I understand that its a psychological survey that intends to show psychological traits that lend themselves to a certain leadership style and how those things are manifest in politics, but the issue is quite complex to boil down into the results of one study done by secret academicians.

I know John Dean is a terrorist loving pinko , peta loving left wing nut job ..... I know how this works ........ as for the link , I know it was a slight oversight on your Part BUT IT IS HIS BOOOOOOOOOOOOK...... go figure I dont have a link to his Book ...........

[epicSocialism4tw]

I know John Dean is a terrorist loving pinko , peta loving left wing nut job ..... I know how this works ........ as for the link , I know it was a slight oversight on your Part BUT IT IS HIS BOOOOOOOOOOOOK...... go figure I dont have a link to his Book ...........


Not to a book, to a study. A scientific study is usually released and published in a peer reviewed scientific publication. One that is so distinct should be well documented and criticized in the psychological testing community.

It's important in the goal of legitimizing the results and affirming a theory.

Edit: If Dean "uncovered" this study, then it is probably not of any significance. Any honest academician would have pushed something like this into the cultural anthropology, political, and sociological think tanks for further scrutiny.

[clarker]

Bill Clinton wasnt a authoritarian leader ....... he was a womenizer but not a authoritarian.........He was the President that makes him a authority figure, IMO. All the Presidents were.

[Spider]

He was the President that makes him a authority figure, IMO. All the Presidents were.
:rofl: .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

mAnn Coulter!!Hilarious! Hilarious! That is classic. Crazy Anny is kinda She-Hulk looking.

:laugh:

She's a chick with a d*ck.

How else do you explain the Adam's apple?

:D

[clarker]

:rofl: .........I know Clinton's managment style wouldn't be considered authoritarian, but he is a central figure of the Democaratic party much like Reagon(SP?) was for the Republican party. And there are people who follow him and believe everything he said without question. Some of which use this board everyday. Anytime some says they don't like him or something they did., they go off like a time bomb.

If your honest with yourself and me, you know I am right. I know there are people on this board that are the same with Bush.

[Spider]

Not to a book, to a study. A scientific study is usually released and published in a peer reviewed scientific publication. One that is so distinct should be well documented and criticized in the psychological testing community.

It's important in the goal of legitimizing the results and affirming a theory.

Edit: If Dean "uncovered" this study, then it is probably not of any significance. Any honest academician would have pushed something like this into the cultural anthropology, political, and sociological think tanks for further scrutiny.
hm how could I make this where it will register ......... The Study was not shared with the public , hence no link , that left wing nut job John Dean put the study in his book , the contents are not linked , so following this line , one would have to buy the book , I can only suggest that you buy the book if you are this concerned ............ either you believe John Dean or you dont ....... Nothing I can do about that ........

[clarker]

:laugh:

She's a chick with a d*ck.

How else do you explain the Adam's apple?

:DI try not to look that close.:thumbs: She thinks she is a conservative, She is a nazi. She claims she makes jokes to make a point, but IMO she goes way to far and underminds the point she claims she is trying to make.

[clarker]

hm how could I make this where it will register ......... The Study was not shared with the public , hence no link , that left wing nut job John Dean put the study in his book , the contents are not linked , so following this line , one would have to buy the book , I can only suggest that you buy the book if you are this concerned ............ either you believe John Dean or you dont ....... Nothing I can do about that ........Yeah, don't try to steal our wing nut. John Dean is a Nixon/Republican nut wing.:yayaya: :thumbsup:

[Spider]

Yeah, don't try to steal our wing nut. John Dean is a Nixon/Republican nut wing.:yayaya: :thumbsup:
;D

[epicSocialism4tw]

hm how could I make this where it will register ......... The Study was not shared with the public , hence no link , that left wing nut job John Dean put the study in his book , the contents are not linked , so following this line , one would have to buy the book , I can only suggest that you buy the book if you are this concerned ............ either you believe John Dean or you dont ....... Nothing I can do about that ........

He claims to have "uncovered" a significant 50 year study on political psychology that was not analyzed in the public forum of scientific study. Something like that would give anyone who has studied science in any field some pause. I'm not saying that the possibility is not there that some of the info in the study is legit, but Dean does not mention the authors of the studies or anything about it. Any time a politician selling a book neglects to give crucial information about something as integral to the premise as the legitimacy of the origin of the scientific study, you really have to wait for better information. The guy is trying to sell a book. "Academics" could be a couple of high school government teachers.

[Spider]

He claims to have "uncovered" a significant 50 year study on political psychology that was not analyzed in the public forum of scientific study. Something like that would give anyone who has studied science in any field some pause. I'm not saying that the possibility is not there that some of the info in the study is legit, but Dean does not mention the authors of the studies or anything about it. Any time a politician selling a book neglects to give crucial information about something as integral to the premise as the legitimacy of the origin of the scientific study, you really have to wait for better information. The guy is trying to sell a book. "Academics" could be a couple of high school government teachers.
What part of either you believe John Dean or not , wasnt I clear on ?

[epicSocialism4tw]

What part of either you believe John Dean or not , wasnt I clear on ?

He's a politician. I dont believe a word he says.

Ironically, you are blindly "following" the carrot. Those "secret" studies must surely be of value if a conservative presents them in a book, right? Especially if they are critical of "those dumb conservatives".

That surely wouldnt help with his business relationships with the good 'ol boy conservatives, would it now?

[Spider]

He's a politician. I dont believe a word he says.

Ironically, you are blindly "following" the carrot. Those "secret" studies must surely be of value if a conservative presents them in a book, right? Especially if they are critical of "those dumb conservatives".

That surely wouldnt help with his business relationships with the good 'ol boy conservatives, would it now?
LOL .can you point to the post where I said this was 100% on the money ? or that this is truth ? All I said was this smacks Republicans around a bit . that it does .... everything else has been what the study said ......... so if you coulod back up this post I would be thankfull

[clarker]

LOL .can you point to the post where I said this was 100% on the money ? or that this is truth ? All I said was this smacks Republicans around a bit . that it does .... everything else has been what the study said ......... so if you coulod back up this post I would be thankfullThey fact that you posted in the first place implies you believe it at least a little. Unless the reason you posted it was soley because it "smaked Republicans around". I would be disappointed that came from you. I wouldn't think you would post something for just because it puts Republicans in a bad light, with no proof of what it says. It says something bad about Republicans, so that is good enough for you? Doesn't matter if it is true or not.

So you can say "well either you believe John Dean or not." And that is true, but if John Dean doesn't provide proof, why should believe it at face value?

[Spider]

They fact that you posted in the first place implies you believe it at least a little. Unless the reason you posted it was soley because it "smaked Republicans around". I would be disappointed that came from you. I wouldn't think you would post something for just because it puts Republicans in a bad light, with no proof of what it says. It says something bad about Republicans, so that is good enough for you? Doesn't matter if it is true or not.

So you can say "well either you believe John Dean or not." And that is true, but if John Dean doesn't provide proof, why should believe it at face value?
I see so I shouldnt post anything about conservitives in a political forum ........
so now that the rules are set ...... How about that damn clinton hey ........

[epicSocialism4tw]

LOL .can you point to the post where I said this was 100% on the money ? or that this is truth ? All I said was this smacks Republicans around a bit . that it does .... everything else has been what the study said ......... so if you coulod back up this post I would be thankfull

It smacks republicans around a bit? Umm...no. It just looks like more propaganda to me. I dont care what affiliation he has...he's a politician. I'm not a republican and I dont care about that either.

The point was to illustrate how hokey this all sounds.

[Spider]

It smacks republicans around a bit? Umm...no. It just looks like more propaganda to me. I dont care what affiliation he has...he's a politician. I'm not a republican and I dont care about that either.

The point was to illustrate how hokey this all sounds. got the point Clarker already pointed it out , I shouldnt post anything that shows republicans in a bad light on the political forum ........ I didnt know about that rule ...... Clarker cleared it up for me ... How about that Damn Clinton huh ? I bet it was Bill Clinton that talked Shanny into starting Griese

[clarker]

I see so I shouldnt post anything about conservitives in a political forum ........
so now that the rules are set ...... How about that damn clinton hey ........No that is not what I'm saying. But you don't seem the type to post something just because it says something bad about a Republican. IMO, you seem like the type who would want make sure that what your posting was true.

It would be like me posting a story that says something about Dems just because it puts the Dems in a bad light even if that story has no proof of what it claims.

[Spider]

No that is not what I'm saying. But you don't seem the type to post something just because it says something bad about a Republican. IMO, you seem like the type who would want make sure that what your posting was true.

It would be like me posting a story that says something about Dems just because it puts the Dems in a bad light even if that story has no proof of what it claims.
take it easy I already admitted i was wrong for posting somthing that showed Republicans in a bad light , I should have known that John Dean would get on TV and lie through his teeth , although angry Llama couldnt back up his post , I saw the error of my ways ...... DO NOT POST ANYTHING BAD ABOUT REPUBLICANS ....... I got it .......... if do it again I should be banned for 30 days deal ?

[epicSocialism4tw]

got the point Clarker already pointed it out , I shouldnt post anything that shows republicans in a bad light on the political forum ........ I didnt know about that rule ...... Clarker cleared it up for me ... How about that Damn Clinton huh ? I bet it was Bill Clinton that talked Shanny into starting Griese

If you want to show them in a bad light, dont leave the door open for people who want facts to knock down the premise that refers to "secret" information by unnamed "academics" who hadn't made their information public. Those facts put into question the idea that it was even a legitimate scientific study off the bat. If you have to buy his book to get the study, you enter into a whole different set of ethical problems.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

She thinks she is a conservative, She is a nazi.

She's so psychotic I'm not even sure the nazis would take her. :D

[Spider]

If you want to show them in a bad light, dont leave the door open for people who want facts to knock down the premise that refers to "secret" information by unnamed "academics" who hadn't made their information public. Those facts put into question the idea that it was even a legitimate scientific study off the bat. If you have to buy his book to get the study, you enter into a whole different set of ethical problems.
ok ........ like I said , I should have known John Dean would get on TV and lie about this , you showed me .......... How about that damn Bill clinton ( oh and speaking of facts , still waiting for you to back up your post .Sometime tonight would be nice .thanks in advance )

[Spider]

The only thing that eludes me about Angry LLama is , he would have us think that College and University professors and the like are not liberals , and it would be a reach for the staunch conservitives of the higher education world , to run a study like this ....... maybe he can explain this

[clarker]

take it easy I already admitted i was wrong for posting somthing that showed Republicans in a bad light , I should have known that John Dean would get on TV and lie through his teeth , although angry Llama couldnt back up his post , I saw the error of my ways ...... DO NOT POST ANYTHING BAD ABOUT REPUBLICANS ....... I got it .......... if do it again I should be banned for 30 days deal ?Quit being a drama queen.

Just think about it I post a story that says a study says that Dems tend to be needy people who depend on other people for everything. The story puts Dems in a bad light. But the story doesn't who did the study. It wasn't put put in the public for inspection. Would you believe it? I didn't think so.

[Spider]

Quit being a drama queen.

Just think about it I post a story that says a study says that Dems tend to be needy people who depend on other people for everything. The story puts Dems in a bad light. But the story doesn't who did the study. It wasn't put put in the public for inspection. Would you believe it? I didn't think so.
jeez . how many more times do I have to be beat ? I said I learned my lesson dont post anything on a political message board that shows conservititves in a bad light .. I get it ..........

[clarker]

She's so psychotic I'm not even sure the nazis would take her. :DSure would. She would be the bar bouncer. She-Hulks are good for that.;D

[clarker]

jeez . how many more times do I have to be beat ? I said I learned my lesson dont post anything on a political message board that shows conservititves in a bad light .. I get it ..........Well, you better.:thumbsup: ;D

It is an interesting topic no matter if Dean's study is legit or not.

I would admit that I would believe that Republicans gravitate more toward a authoritarian managament style. But as for following the party line with blind faith. I would say you can find that in large amounts on the far sides of either party.

[Spider]

I would admit that I would believe that Republicans gravitate more toward a authoritarian managament style. But as for following the party line with blind faith. I would say you can find that in large amounts on the far sides of either party.
Iam curious as to this study myself ...... I just hope the book has alot of pictures ;D

[clarker]

Iam curious as to this study myself ...... I just hope the book has alot of pictures ;DI edited the quote of mine you posted and put it with my previous post. Then deleted the second one. Sorry for any confusion.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Dean has had problems with fudging facts in the past...
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean

"...Blind Ambition was ghost written (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_writer) by Taylor Branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Branch). Dean admitted that Branch took over the sections of the book regarding Watergate using Dean's testimony and other materials and "dramatized" it.<SUP id=fn_3_back>3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean#fn_3)</SUP> He did not admit to any inaccuracies but admitted he had never read Blind Ambition from "cover to cover" or checked all of its facts.<SUP id=fn_4_back>4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean#fn_4)</SUP> "


Further Evidence of Dean's Political Ethics:
"Dean pled guilty to obstruction of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice) before Watergate trial judge John Sirica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sirica) on October 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_19), 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973). He admitted supervising payments of "hush money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_money)" to the Watergate burglars, notably E. Howard Hunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt), and revealed the existence of Nixon's enemies list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_enemies_list). On August 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2), 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974), Sirica handed down a sentence of one to four years in a minimum-security prison."

On His Political Interest:
"Dean authored a book heavily critical of the administration of George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), entitled Worse than Watergate"



So...I'm supposed to take what this guy says at face value?

[Spider]

I edited the quote of mine you posted and put it with my previous post. Then deleted the second one. Sorry for any confusion.
:thumbs: . no confusion ....... I dont buy political books i doubt i will buy this one , i will wait untill it is released and read on line reviews .......

[clarker]

:thumbs: . no confusion ....... I dont buy political books i doubt i will buy this one , i will wait untill it is released and read on line reviews .......I might buy it. But I don't know. I just started reading "The Agenda" by Bob Woodward. It is about how Clinton came up with economic plan in his first term. It sheds Clinton in a very good light and it is interesting to get a view of how an administration(SP?) puts together policy.

[enjolras]

Coming onto this late... but wanted to throw my worthless 2 cents in:)

Angryllama is exactly right.. this is not a scientific study that is cited. Peer review is an essential (not optional) part of any truly scientific process. A secret study, by definition, is not science. It may be a 'study', but its certainly not a credible one.

I'm not saying that its assertions are true (or not), but they certainly aren't scientifically validated in any true way.