Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Political extremism

Comments

Return To Article
  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 12:39 a.m.

    What Mr McDonald fails to understand is that simply labeling anyone who questions Obama as being extremist is being extremist themselves.
    It is not Utah's or the rights fault that Obama has failed economically, has failed internationally, has failed with Obamacare, has developed a particularly horrid Orewellian penchant for spying on people, has abuse his power or clearly does not know what he is doing.

    Labeling those who can clearly see that the emperor has no clothes as being "extremist" ultimately reflect more on the labeler than the labelee

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    It must be lonely standing in the middle while everyone else goes to extremes. How do you maintain your sanity living in Utah County? But thank you for your very articulate and eloquent words of wisdom.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 10, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    What Andrew does not seem to understand is that political extremism are alive and well on the left as well! Left wing extremism occupies the white house, most of the news media, and the SCOTUS today! The constitution is being violated and if anyone points that fact out, they are branded right wing extremists by the extremists on the left. Benghazi, Obamacare, the bailouts, nullifying legitimate elections, IRS abuses, fast and furious, A.P. abuses, NSA spying all violations of the constitution but defended or ignored by left wing extremists! Why? because they are extremists!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 10, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    Re: "Is further hardening of the current rift . . . and more political gridlock really what we as Utahns want as our contribution to national politics?"

    Yep.

    Gridlock is infinitely better than the headlong rush toward thoroughly discredited redistributive socialism; loony, open-borders internationalism; unproductive, unsustainable "conservation," and the liberty-sapping libertine morality that liberals seem intent on leading.

    A quote variously attributed to Adams, Paine, and Jefferson says it best -- "Who governs least, governs best."

    Thoreau's expansion on that "quote" is also apt to our times -- "Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient."

    Modern American government has trotted WAY past inexpedience, in the direction of destructive. And, those suggesting government is now, somehow, obliged to DO something -- anything -- as opposed to doing nothing, are simply engaged in disingenuous leftist politicking.

    Modern America's unfortunate truth is this -- more often than not, our government operates best when it operates not at all.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    I am an extremist.

    I place my welfare and that of my close beings as the most important things in the world. The God of the natural world made me this way when he gave all life the commandment to survive. I believe that all other normal human beings have the same drive.

    The problem for us is that some have created the man made suspicion that to improve our own welfare we must put the welfare of others down. They believe that there is not enough of the good life for everyone and so they must hoard as much as they can.

    Their tools for hoarding include all the things that separate and disadvantage those who would be dominated. Extremist is simply a word to further their agenda. Only in their use is it a bad thing.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    @Curmudgeon

    "How do you maintain your sanity living in Utah County?"

    I am always fascinated by people who make comments like that while lecturing on moderation (imagine how it would sound if it were said in reverse - how do you maintain your sanity living in [implied hedonistic left wing] salt lake city?)

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    This letter is the perfect example of left-wing extremism run amok. Indeed, it is the blatant leftist technique of accusing opponents of being out of touch with the mainstream in order to distract the public from the real issues.
    The left is relentless in attacking all who oppose it--accusing anyone who opposes it of being intolerant.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    July 10, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    @Counter Intelligence
    Salt Lake City, UT

    - how do you maintain your sanity living in [implied hedonistic left wing] salt lake city?)
    7:57 a.m. July 10, 2013

    ======

    Salt Lake City, left wing?
    LOL, ROTF..

    THIS Ladies and Gentleman, is a perfect example of HOW one becomes extremist.

    It's also why Left-Center RINO Ronald Reagan would NEVER be conservative today.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 10, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    ".... extremism in any form, either on the right or on the left, is always the problem rather than any kind of solution."
    ______________________________

    That message won't move anyone out of his comfort zone. But it's nice to see someone try.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    Balance & diversity in Utah? That's comical.

    re: Mountanman.

    I agree. I'll offer this metaphor.. in order for a plane to fly it needs a right wing and a left wing.

    re: Counter Intelligence

    The problem w/ your flipping the assertion is; SLC is hardly San Francisco. There are pockets that lean primarily to the left but is more than countered by the most of the South part of the SL valley.

    Re: John Charity Spring

    1st) its amuck not amok 2nd) How are the lefts tactics any worse than the rights? The right loves to whine incessantly about the need to return to some Pleasantville like utopia... which never existed.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Those who are unduly troubled by ambiguity are generally more comfortable in a world of absolutes and clear-cut differences, making for clear and easy decisions. The reality of those more disposed to ambiguity, on the other hand, is more complex. Absolutes are more open to questions of degree and condition. Distinctions are less firm and decisions more difficult.
    There is no real moral advantage in either case. The problem lies in the extremes. While at one end of the spectrum are total absolutism and despotism, at the other end are complete relativism and anarchy. And while absolutism in the extreme is constrained and frozen, relativism in the extreme is unbounded motion that is random. Only in the resolution or commingling of constraint with randomness is motion directed or, in other words, is there progress with meaning and purpose. It is in the resolution of opposition--where the two extremes are balanced--that life's proverbial straight and narrow pathway is found.

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    Anyone who wants to see the dangers in extremism need only look at John Swallow and Mark shurleff.

    Look at the long history of corruption out of our AG's office. Since our state is so extreme and so dominated by the GOP, these folks think that they can do whatever they want without ever being held accountable.

    Just ask yourself, "If John Swallow was a Democrat, would he still be in office?"

    I think we all know the answer to that.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 10, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Moderation in ALL things means,
    Moderation in ALL things.

    Mister J
    Great metaphor.. "in order for a plane to fly it needs a right wing and a left wing."

    Well said.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    It's disheartening to know your views will never be taken seriously here, or that you can never even consider running for office because it's a waste of time. But, it's also liberating, because as a pariah people pretty much leave you alone and you can do what you want because there's no hope of fitting in anyway. So it's a pretty good place to watch crazy politics from the sidelines, and a great place to make a buck or two from people who are willing to skirt the rules.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Re: "1st) its amuck not amok . . . ."

    Yeah -- that about says it all.

    Callow, shallow leftists now insist on substituting their "judgment" for that of thousands of years of human culture [and grammar], resulting in a ruling regime composed mainly of smug, but inexperienced, incapable, maladapted malcontents, rather than of seasoned, experienced [and educated] leaders.

    God, help us. Please!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Andrew,
    If you were writing the same letters complaining about Democrats during the Bush Administration, and the early Obama Administration (when we had Democrat control of EVERYTHING and a Super-Majority of Democrats in the Congress)... then I'll listen. If not... your just another partisan whiner.

    The first two years of the Obama Administration Democrats controlled all branches of the Federal Government and had a veto-proof filibuster-proof super-majority in Congress. I didn't hear you or ANY Democrats complaining about needing more Republicans for more balance. Did I?

    When President Bush won re-election both Nancy Pelosi AND Harry Reid went on the news and proclaimed that their agenda for his second term would be "Nothing but Investigations and blocking everything he proposed". What's the difference? Yet you didn't complain then.

    The radical-left is no better than radical-right.

    You only see a problem when the OTHER party does it. But are willingly blind when your party does it.

    BOTH parties are just as bad. Both use the same tactics (when in the minority). Both take turns keeping the gridlock in Washington going.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    The left celebrates diversity of everything except opinion. To people like Mr. McDonald, our "diversity" will only be "balanced" when we stop criticizing President Barack Obama.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    to Open Minded Mormon

    Welcome.

    Isn't it funny how "Moderation in ALL things." is no longer at the end of the 89th Section of the Doc & Cov?

    Because, all could be interpreted to include politically as well??

    re: Hutterite

    You are right. Look at how the GOP has marginalized Ron Paul. Ironically, they think his son is all that & a bag of chips.

    Resistance is futile but conformity is lame.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon,
    All these calls for moderation and balance are GREAT, and I love hearing them, but where were you when Maverick, LDS Liberal, and other radical left-wingers came on here and said "I can't wait till the Republican party doesn't even exist", or "I can't wait for the day when the TeaParty people no longer exist", or "when are we going to put these TeaParty people in the attic where they belong", etc, etc, etc...

    That wishing they totally didn't even exist... doesn't sound like a call for "Moderation" to me. Does it to you?

    That's what happens when partisanship takes control. You can only see the faults in the other side... while you do exactly what you complain about THEM doing.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 10, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    I get a real kick out of letters that complain that the most conservative State in the Union will always be on the wrong side of the political fence until it starts electing liberals. Maybe the first thing that they should do is to ask themselves why Utah is conservative. Maybe they should ask themselves what values Utahns have. Then, when they've done that little bit of homework, they can look at the Democrat Party Platform and ask themselves why the Democrats have abandoned all conservative values.

    For many Utahns, having a political party tell us that the life of an unborn baby can be destroyed without protection of any kind simply because one of the three people involved has decided that she has the right, granted by government, to destroy a life, is the "veto" item on the Democrat Party Platform.

    In Utah we love our families. We love our children. They are precious to us. Destroying them because the government allows it automatically excludes anyone whose party platform supports abortion, except in extreme cases.

    If those Democrats want to be elected, let them run as independents or as Republicans.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 10, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Open Minded Mormon,
    All these calls for moderation and balance are GREAT, and I love hearing them, but where were you when Maverick, LDS Liberal, and other radical left-wingers came on here and said..."I can't wait for the day when the TeaParty people no longer exist", etc, etc, etc...

    ======

    Mitt Romney couldn't even win the GOP nomination until he faked his way into the radical right-wing Tea-Party extremists hearts and minds.

    And then,
    after the party nomination, desperately tacked hard left only then to become known as a spineless flip-flopper.

    So, I can't wait for the Tea-Party to no longer exist.

    Perhaps - THEN - then former-Massachusetts NorthEastern GOVERNOR Romney could have won.
    Try looking at a moderate - Like a Jon Huntsman Jr. or Chris Christie or some other left-center Reagan Republican who could easily win WhiteHouse -- but can't get past the radical nominatin process.

    Trust me -- no Democrat wants the Tea-Party to go away, EVER!
    It's the BEST thing that has ever happened for them.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 10, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    "All these calls for moderation and balance are GREAT, and I love hearing them, but where were you when Maverick, LDS Liberal, and other radical left-wingers came on here and said "I can't wait till the Republican party doesn't even exist", or "I can't wait for the day when the TeaParty people no longer exist", or "when are we going to put these TeaParty people in the attic where they belong", etc, etc, etc..."

    Please provide a link for when we said stuff like this.

    In fact, I'm pretty sure you're getting us confused with predominate leaders like John McCain who can't stand the tea party. So many top GOP leaders have become greater critics of the tea party then democrats ever could have been. Just look at how folks are fleeing the tea party like rats on board a sinking ship.

    The GOP is being torn in half. Many repubs wish that the tea party had never existed! What are you folks going to do to remain relevant?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 10, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    The totality of Obama's presidency has been a center-right administration. When you look at his major (and majority of the minor) policy initiatives, he has not enacted liberal policies in any arena.

    Gitmo closed? No.

    ACA? Heritage Foundation.

    Largest tax break for American citizens in history? Obama's ARRA.

    Current largest tax breaks? Favor wealthiest 20% of Americans.

    Lowest tax rates for top 1% in 70 years? Obama Administration.

    Lowest effective corporate tax rate in last 70 years? Obama Administration.

    Lowest effective tax rate for all Americans since 1920? Obama Administration.

    Worker/union rights? Eroding.

    Foreign Policy? Preemptive violations of other nations' sovereignty (aka Bush Doctrine)

    National Security? Expanded Bush's wiretapping, monitor online activity.

    Patriot Act? Renewed, expanded.

    Obama's cabinet? High percentage of ex-bankers.

    Illegal immigration? Deportations up.

    Habeas Corpus? Denied to Gitmo detainees and Bradley Manning.

    Military tribunals? Still in place.

    Extraordinary rendition? Continued.

    Bailout? For banks.

    Big pharma? Eliminated competition.

    Monsanto? Protected.

    Government transparency? Shrouded.

    Espionage Act? Used more under Obama than all previous presidents combined.

    Offshore drilling? Expanded.

    Fracking? Expanded.

    Plus, so so so much more.

    Democrat or Republican, if you think Obama is a liberal, you've been fooled.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    Mister J is dead wrom. The dictionary specifically states: "Main Entry: amok; a murderous frenzy that has traditionally been regarded as occurring especially in Malaysian culture." Your criticism is typical of leftist extremism, which uses red herrings to distract the public from the real issue.

    The real issue is that the left has embraced the use of coercion and intimidation to silence all who oppose it. That is irrefutable fact.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    @ 2 bits

    Are you kidding me? The democrats can't wait for the tea party to go away? Huh? Have you spoken with any democrats? I have, and none of them want the tea party to go away. In fact, they are huge fans of the tea party. The tea party has been thee greatest help mate to the democrats than anyone could have ever imagined!

    Seriously, the democrats could discover a cure for cancer and it wouldn't help them in the polls as much as the tea party has.

    I am one conservative who isn't a fan of the tea party at all. I want it to go away. The sooner it does the sooner we can get back to actually solving problems. The tea party has cost is 2 elections already. We are losing votes all over the place from young people to Latinos. What does this mean for us in the future?

    Republicans and conservatives everywhere should be trying to rid themselves of this radicalism found in the tea party. Lets get back to moderation... PLEASE!

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    to procuradorfiscal

    How we communicate is crucial especially on the internet. "Judging" by your posts, the word pompous comes to mind though more like Arnold Rimmer than Charles Emerson Winchester III

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    Excellent letter, Andrew. For all those ultra-right-wingers who are denying that they are extremists or accusing the letter writer of being a left-leaning extremist, please consider that your own party commissioned a study after Romney's disastrous defeat. The study concluded that the GOP was in serious trouble, largely because of its extreme views on, well, nearly everything. So, it's not just the Democrats who are calling you extremists. It's your own party apparatus. I happen to be unaffiliated, and I see far more extreme views on the right than on the left. Yes, there are some extreme leftist in Congress, but, Mountanman, the dude in the Oval Office isn't one. He's governed from the center, even right of center on some things.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 10, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Open Minded Mormon,
    All these calls for moderation and balance are GREAT, and I love hearing them, but where were you when Maverick, LDS Liberal, and other radical left-wingers came on here and said..."I can't wait for the day when the TeaParty people no longer exist", etc, etc, etc...

    ==========

    BTW - For the record.

    If I was to donate $100 to any political party,
    I'd gladly give it to the Tea-Party.

    Why, you may ask?
    Because - It will HELP the Democrats 1,000 times more indirectly than it could ever help them directly.
    That's why.

    I wouldn't be surprised at all to find Democratic funds being given to Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck for the same reasons...
    They don't want them "silenced".
    It's all a show,
    it's all about them making the most money they can,
    and you are the lemmings falling for it.
    Over and over again.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Mister J:

    Amok and amuck are both correct. But amok is the preferred spelling. It comes from Malay. Amuck is a variation that has gained acceptance over the years. When you correct someone, it's always a good idea to be correct.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    Re: ". . . the word pompous comes to mind . . . ."

    You must have been talking to my kids.

    But, I'll stick with callow, shallow, and smug. Seems to apply even more now.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    I have to laugh at those claiming to be moderates, centrists, or in the middle, because they are actually egocentrics and don't seem to know it.

    Then there are the admitted left wingers, who whine about being in the minority in Utah, while living in a wonderful free country, where they continue to choose to reside such that they are in the minority.

    But being in a free country means they are free to whine, and I am free to laugh, or ignore, as I see fit.

  • Government Man Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    We need leaders who can work across party lines. Both Lincoln and Washington filled their Cabinets with people who had divergent and contradictory views on issues. Both of these great leaders would listen to the debate between their divergent officers, and then they would make a decision. This is called Leadership. Both Washington and Lincoln would be ashamed of what is currently going on in Utah. Our politics in this state are not in good shape!!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    Maverick and Mormon,
    I'm glad you guys are such big TeaParty fans now. It's disingenuous, but pretending you like them makes for an interesting talking point (how the evil TeaParty is ruining the world and getting Democrats elected). You may have a good point there. But it's not just TeaParty people the radical-left keeps wishing would just cease to exist... it's also Republicans in general. I'm not going to provide links to the comments, but you all know it's been said, and it will happen in your comments again tomorrow (after the pretense of only wanting moderation is gone).

    If not... then we have all gown up a little today.

    --------
    100 words remaining so I'm going to ask another question...
    ?Do you complain as frequently about OccupyWallstreet as you do the TeaParty? Because I see Occupy Wallstreet as just as radical as the TeaParty.

    If we're going to decry radicalism today... seems like we should do it on BOTH sides (not just one)

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 10, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    "I am one conservative who isn't a fan of the tea party at all"

    Sorry dude, your no conservative! Just like John McCain, and Lindsey Graham or Huntsman (just to name a few), you would like to be known a s conservative. You recognize that the term brings more respect, but none of you are conservative! RINO's maybe? Oh and by the way, how did that wishy washy "moderate" thinking work for McCain, when he ran for President? Enough said!

  • Republicantthinkstraigh Anywhere but, Utah, Utah
    July 10, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    Occupy didn't take over the Democratic party like the Tea Party did with the Republican party. Occupy was noteworthy for what a month?? Haven't seen them in the news forever.

    Obama has been a Republican and it has been very disappointing to a lot of us but we look at the clown show the Republican party has become and can't, with any good conscious, vote for that. So as of now, Obama and the Democrats are the better of the two evils.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    One needs also to consider New York, California, New Jersey, Washington and other states with Democrat hegemony. Compromise to the far left in reality means forget your convictions and do things my way. Our president made that clear, "We won the election, get to the back of the bus." As an independent I do not agree with all either party advocates, but perhaps Utah's conservative dominance counter balances the big money influences of unions, crony capitalists, Hollywood, George Soros, George Kaiser, David Geffen and other left wing billionaires.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 10, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    I'm a liberal and I LOVE the tea party.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 10, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    The ultimate irony of the the comments here has come from the liberals here. They all at one time or another have complained about Utah politics and how it is more conservative adn doesn't have many liberals in politics. Yet, when the Federal Government was dominated by liberals, they said nothing and were glad. And yes, many of those same liberals have said that they look forward to the day when there is only political party in one way or another.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" I don't know how you define the political spectrum, but I would assume that you define it as a difference between Bush and Obama. The sad thing is that your comparison is like saying that the political spectrum is everything between Communism and Socialism. That is not exactly a good spread. Obama has been hard left his entire presidency, and we have over $6 Trillion in new debt as proof.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 10, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    2 bits so as not to be confused, when addressing any one of the following liberal posts you are addressing the same person.
    Airnaut
    LDS Liberal
    LDS Treehugger
    Samual the Liberalite
    Open Minded Mormon

    In this manner he can appear to be a whole host of individuals and exceed the four post limit. Now DN censors this is no way a personal attack, just info regarding a poster.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 10, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    I think the most exciting political event on the distant horizon will be the 2016 Republican presidential primary. I wonder how the various candidates will position themselves on the issues in order to placate the Tea Party without alienating everyone else. My prediction: Hilary Clinton's dog could beat the eventual Republican winner. Whoever wins will have the same insurmountable problem Romney had: claiming to be "severely conservative" while also claiming to be everything else. High entertainment value. Buy your tickets now.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    Well I'm glad to see that we're finally openly discussing political extremism. I've been trying to get people to realize this is the REAL "problem" for years.

    IMO it doesn't matter which SIDE the extremism is on... The extremism is the problem (not the particular philosophy).

    I just wish we could discuss this and realism that it's "Extremism" that's the problem... not the party or the philosophy they are extreme on. Too many people have their head in the sand and think there's only "right-wing extremism". That shows how little we actually care about this topic. Many obviously care more about pumping partisan rhetoric and attacking the opposition than they do about reducing extremism.

    That's a shame.

    Last comment

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 10, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    @jsf

    "In this manner he can appear to be a whole host of individuals and exceed the four post limit. Now DN censors this is no way a personal attack, just info regarding a poster."

    You mean like RedShirt and RedShirt1701?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 10, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    @HaHaHa

    "Oh and by the way, how did that wishy washy "moderate" thinking work for McCain, when he ran for President? Enough said!"

    It wasn't McCain that lost the election. I believe it was the Tea Party hero wearing the Guns.Babies.Jesus shirts.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 10, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    CHS 85

    yes.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 10, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    Redshirt

    1 – You’ve fallen prey to a logical disconnect. Pushing for liberal parity in UT politics is not discordant with advocating for a liberal majority. Indeed, liberal parity in UT is the precursor to a liberal majority. The only thing you assess correctly is our anticipation of when conservatives cease to exist as a viable political party in the US.

    2 – My political spectrum is based off decades upon decades of social, economic, and foreign policy issues. Further, the fact that under the Obama Administration private corporate profits have hit record highs, the DJIA has hit record highs, individual wealth has soared for top wage earners, the number of public sector employees has shrunk, and federal deficit/spending are down literally indicates you have no clue what socialism or communism are definitionally.

    3 – You cannot simply state Obama has been “hard left” – you must prove it. If your parameter of “hard left” equates simply to increasing the debt then Reagan, Bush41, and Bush43 are “hard left” while Carter and Clinton are ostensibly “hard right.” Great parameters there, Redshirt; that is not convincing.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    to J C S & Ford DeTreese

    This is not Malaysia. Its America & if we are going to use any "foreign" words; it'd better be Latin American Spanish.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 10, 2013 6:30 p.m.

    "Guns.Babies.Jesus shirts."

    Can we assume that this quote is one of those mindless references to Palin? Try again! McCain was a total loser, sinking faster then the Titanic. Once he picked Palin, his poll numbers jumped 10 points. She is the one who saved him from a complete meltdown!

    "Carter and Clinton are ostensibly “hard right"

    Is this your mindless, backhanded way, to try and claim they DID NOT add to the deficit? If so, you would be way wrong again! Clinton and Carter both added to the deficit every year they were in office! Those are the facts!!!

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 10, 2013 6:32 p.m.

    I mean debt, which is what you were talking about!!

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 10, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    HaHaHaHa - For someone with a moniker denoting humor, sarcasm sure isn't your forte. Redshirt incorrectly assessed that adding large amounts to the debt proved Obama was "hard left" thereby implying that the greater the increase, the more "left" one was. I sarcastically made the point that the opposite was true - a "left" president tends to increase the debt at a much slower rate than a "right" president. Below are those facts:

    President/% increase in debt during tenure:

    Carter - 42.3%

    Reagan - 188.6%

    Bush41 - 55.6%

    Clinton - 35.6%

    Bush43 - 89%

    Obama - 53.6%

    Further, when compared to GDP, the listed "left" presidents actually shrunk the debt percentage whereas all "right" presidents listed above increased the respective debt percentage.

    Sorry, you and Red need to find another artificial barometer b/c this one just imploded in your face.

    Also, it seems as though your exclamation point sticks here and there when you type. You may want to look into fixing that.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:12 p.m.

    Those Carter years were great, weren't they? The whole construction industry was wiped out, and a whole lot of support industries went with it. And gotta love that inflation.

    And a debt of 74% of GDP (end of 20008) is lower than a debt 105% of GDP today. Yeah Obama has really lowered the debt because 17 trillion is way less than 10 trillion.

    I can see why the liberals don't respond well to math and monetary figures. They got lost when the math class tried to cover basic inequalities (they look like this ). But then I am not sure they understand equality either.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:40 p.m.

    I guess great-than and less-than symbols don't print. Well you might remember them, you know, the alligator mouths, where the big side eats the little side. Or if your teacher didn't teach you that, they are the shift symbols on the period and the comma keys of your computer.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 11, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    Badgerbadger - Aside from being redundant, you also just engaged in what is known as "showing up at halftime and asking to be put in the game." Indeed, my first post on this article started off with "[t]he totality of Obama's presidency has been a center-right administration." So, by pointing out that Obama increased the debt to GDP ratio, you unwittingly proved my point that Obama is, in policy, a center-right president. Indeed, my statement holds true. All "left" presidents (Carter, Clinton) above shrunk the debt to GDP ratio while all "right" presidents (Reagan, Bush41, Bush43, Obama) increased it. Even by a standard cherry-picked by Redshirt, you guys can't make your point. That must be frustrating.

    With respect to math, I really think you should do some research regarding political inclinations of highly educated Americans. Further, with respect to monetary issues, perhaps you should remind us of all the major financial sectors created in conservative states. From my side, I can think of liberal strongholds such as NYC and SF being the most prominent. I'm sure Murray, UT is a powerhouse of industry though, we all just don't know it yet.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    July 11, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" his hard left stance is seen in the massive government programs that he has inflated and expanded, and also in the Obamacare package. Basically you need to look at things in terms of steps. If Obama was center right, I would expect small steps towards smaller government and less regulation.

    Since Obama has been hard left, he took a huge step to the left when he took the TARP funds and spent them, then got an additional Trillion dollars for more failed stimulus programs. He followed that up with more regulation on business, and his crowning achievement so far was Obamacare and the Fascism that it creates. (Fascism is socialization of businesses while keeping them in the ownership of private individuals)

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 11, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    @ SS

    I'm not going to argue with your numbers, I think they are fairly accurate, as a snapshot of starting and ending dates of each president. But as you fail to mention, in your "redundant" line-up of excuse making for democrat presidents, there is much more to each story, and everyone of these presidents faced different circumstances. As an example, other then being at war, which explains a lot of GWB debt, Reagan inherited a much bigger financial mess from Carter, then obama inherited form GWB!!!! Reagan also inspired the country, unlike your dems!!!! He didn't make excuses about the previous administration, he just fixed it!!!! Contrast Reagan with Clinton- Reagan had to make deals with political enemies, who didn't care how much debt they created!!!! Yea I disagree with him making those deals, whereas Clinton had to make deals with political enemies, who cared about the country and he was able to reduce debt!!!! I could go on and on and on, but before I forget, I think you a whole bunch of obama DNA on your nose, you might want to look into fixing that!!!!

  • dave Park City, UT
    July 11, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    Counter Intelligence,

    You make a few points as fact that in fact are not remotely true.
    (1) " Obama has failed economically..." Have you seen the stock market lately? My portfolio is performing great. There is no greater economic indicator than the stock market.
    (2) " has failed internationally" What does this mean? It's a subjective conclusion based on your pre-judged conclusion. Our foreign policy has bot high points and low points. Focusing on the lows and ignoring the highs is dishonest.
    (3) "failed with Obamacare" How can you cite how something that has not taken effect has failed? Could this be another example of pre-judging?

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    On the topic of Political Extremism, and the related topic of Objectivity (because, let's face it, nobody ever considers themself an extremist), I would be very interested to know how the people who have posted on this thread (and any others who come across this thread, and this post in particular) would respond to the following question:

    How would you ideologically classify a person whose political ideology fell somewhere between Chris Christie and Jim Matheson? Would you consider them an extreme liberal, a moderate liberal, a centrist moderate, a moderate conservative, or an extreme conservative?

    Honest answers to this would be very revealing, so I doubt that many, if any, will respond; but it would be interesting to read the responses, nonetheless.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 11, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    SS

    Well you went from inept at numbers to insulting and ridiculous. If Obama is right leaning, I am green and came from Mars. I am sure you would like it to be a simple as the right makes all the debts and the left is wonderful, but it just isn't so.

    If you ever want to get serious about how the big deficits occur, check out the composition of congress year by year and compare it to the debts. After all, the congress holds the purse, at least according to the Constitution.

    Here are a few highlights, since math seems to be a challenge for you:

    Since 1960

    Democrat congresses ran deficits 94% of the time, totaling 5.8 trillion in debt.

    Republican congresses ran deficits 55% of the time totaling 1.1 trillion in debt

    The rest of the debt was under split congresses.

    Democrat congresses average 39% more debt per year than republicans.

    Democrat congresses have added 5.3 times as much debt as republican congresses.

    dave-

    You notice that Obama doesn't even think Obamacare will turn out well.

  • tesuji St. George, UT
    July 12, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    Well said. I find Utah politics a bit reactionary these days. You often feel like you're in an echo chamber, with the same narrow views just getting repeated over and over. I find good and bad in both parties. To be truly informed you have to listen to both sides.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    July 12, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    One poster suggests that the DN letter writer himself is extreme in implying that anyone who criticizes the president of liberal excess is extreme. I don't believe that was the writer's intent, but there is the uncomfortable reality, confirmed by a host of knowledgeable long-time political observers, that the president is actually far more central in the totality of his policies than dangerously leftist.

    So why is it that some are so eager to accept rumors, half-truths and outright lies, anything that reflects badly on "he without clothes"? Could it be that this is what they want to believe? And why is that? Why are they so adamant in believing the very worst of the president to the point of being unable of even considering any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Call me crazy, but it sounds kind of extreme to me. Just sayin.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    July 14, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    I have never seen our country so politically polarized. The result is partisan gridlock in congress. Bi-partisanship no longer exists. For a tea-party republican to work with democrats would be the end of their political career. Term limits are desperately needed. I find talk radio amusing. Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck have mastered the art of political spin. Ronald Reagan would be a labeled a RINO in today's republican party. I agree with author of the letter. Extremism on either side accomplished nothing. Our revered constitution was a document forged in compromise.