Right wing traits that no self respecting liberal seems able to stomach
Fawning allegiance to a "leader" manifested in juvenile terms more suited to a fan club. Bush's swagger was so manly. Reagan started the wood chopping thing. The adoration of their families as if they were royalty.
The reflexive need to defend at the slightest hint of criticism whatever their leader says or does. The steadfast adherence to the principles of IOKIYAR. Upholding St Ronald's Law about speaking ill of party members, no matter what. The Hastert Rule. Etcetera.
Projection
Add to the list. What right wing traits and behaviors do YOU despise?
= new reply since forum marked as read
My statement stands on its own.
...one based on emotion and personal animus rather than fact.
You're FUN to play with!
Such a thing is fun (and very easy) to do when the accusations are weak. As yours are.
Of course, I won't alert on it because then you won't be able to post on this thread anymore. And I'm enjoying this!!
Hmmm, you might have a point there.
...because your interpretation of my initial statement apparently hit a nerve.
Oh, and you're just not using enough smilies, Skippy!
... "authoritarian types" I've started to hear so much about around here.
Around here lately, if your hair is not on fire, you are clearly part of the problem. And any number of folks will be more than happy to explain that to you.
It's your duty to do so.
Please, my friend, keep them coming!
Let's see how that goes.
...but the Authoritarian and Cult worshipping arguments have not been winning here on DU.
I'm not worried in the least about being "discredited" here. I'm been here too long to worry about such rubbish. Your arguments, however, have been roundly discredited. Look at the greatest page, my friend. 
Please continue!!!!! And by all means, don't forget the winks and the "you betcha's" at the end!
You're saying I'm not courageous, nor am I intellectually honest. I've been nothing but.
Of course, it is an act of cowardice to throw an accusation out there like that without naming any of the folks you are talking about because then you dont have to worry about those people coming into the thread and giving fact based illustrations of their positions proving you wrong.
When you point that out, these folks fall back on "But if I named any folks, it would be alerted" 
Of course, DU3 doesn't work that way. Personal call outs are not necessarily hidden, particularly if they are based on facts and what someone actually said. I think it likely a jury would let that conversation play out and that conversation would ultimately end in the humiliation of the initial accuser.
They lay it on so thick some times it makes me want to
Well isn't this an interesting post.
