Looks like a Jerry Mahoney ventriloquist dummy with a Leftist power fist salute.
Posted on 12/15/2014 9:31:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal “personhood.”
This loathing is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in the 1970s, I worked for a Republican, Fred Lippitt, the senate minority leader in Rhode Island, and I loved him. He was a brand of Republican now extinct—a “moderate” who was fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation. Had he been closer to my age, I could have contemplated marrying someone like Fred. Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me. And I’m not alone. Back in 1960, only 5 percent of Republicans and 4 percent of Democrats said they’d be “displeased” if their child married someone from the opposite party. Today? Forty-nine percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats would be pissed.
According to a recent study by Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar and Princeton researcher Sean Westwood, such polarization has increased dramatically in recent years.
What’s noteworthy is how entrenched this mutual animus is. It’s fine for me to use the word “hate” when referring to Republicans and for them to use the same word about me, but you would never use the word “hate” when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians.
And now party identification and hatred shape a whole host of non-political decisions. Iyengar and Westwood asked participants in their study to review the resumés of graduating high school seniors to decide which ones should receive scholarships. Some resumés had cues about party affiliation (say, member of the Young Republicans Club) and some about racial identity (also through extracurricular activities, or via a stereotypical name). Race mattered, but not nearly as much as partisanship. An overwhelming 80 percent of partisans chose the student of their own party. And this held true even if the candidate from the opposite party had better credentials.
How did we come to this pass? Obviously, my tendency is to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats, which may seem biased. But history and psychological research bear me out.
Let’s start with the history. This isn’t like a fight between siblings, where the parent says, “It doesn’t matter who started it.” Yes, it does.
A brief review of Republican rhetoric and strategies since the 1980s shows an escalation of determined vilification (which has been amplified relentlessly on Fox News since 1996). From Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an “effete corps of impudent snobs”; to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech; to the GOP’s endless campaign to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”), the Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.
Why does this work? A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics. What are they? Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure. How do these qualities influence political thinking?
According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality. These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance. The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes. Which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you—whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats. And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats.
So now we hate them back. And for good reason. Which is too bad. I miss the Fred Lippitts of yore and the civilized discourse and political accomplishments they made possible. And so do millions of totally fed-up Americans.
I hate commies so the feeling is mutual.
Looks like a Jerry Mahoney ventriloquist dummy with a Leftist power fist salute.
This schmuck.... it started with “daisy” and that slime LBJ in 64.
She seethes with the resentment of a woman who has never been attractive at any stage in her life.
“A series of studies (produced by liberals) has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics.”
Fixed it.
Sounds a whole lot like liberals to me.
Let's see. In the 70s, when Republicans were ok, climate change was a non-issue.
Immigration was also not a major issue.
Roe v Wade took abortion out of the political mix in 73 and eventually made partial-birth abortion a national given.
"Progressives" have created all three of these issues and demanded they be given their way on them. Conservatives have had the nerve to resist, so conservatives are the ones creating discord. If they'd had the decency to just submit, we wouldn't have all this unpleasantntess.
Remarkably reminiscent of the criminal describing how it's the fault of the victim that she got shot.
They've been hating us for 50 years, it's time to return the favor.
It all started with smearing of Barry Goldwater with the infamous atomic bomb ad. This is a truth that has obviously escaped her.
Her University is missing out on much, much more. Her beliefs could taint the decision process for contracts, grants, donations and job prospects for its graduates.
She gets the “publish or perish” credit and the University doesn’t know what it has lost.
If they had any sense, they would fire her.
Jeebus H. Christmas Tree, ain't no one gonna marry you, *itch. Would Bill Clinton even hit that? Have you considered a blind date with a blind man?
An aside, an extremely lib family member of mine is dating a Republican for the first time in her life, is happy, and he's the only guy her lib mother ever approved of. Go figure.
Now on to the substance of the article, I am sick and tired of hearing libs whine about "partisanship", "polarization" and "gridlock".
Partisanship is natural and proper in any democracy. "Extreme polarization" is a given when one side is committed to socialism and evil, we are not polarized enough I say. "Gridlock" (aka stopping the Hussien/Pelosi agenda) is only thing keeping this country alive.
God Bless gridlock and God damn the democrap party and everyone that supports it. Amen.
Picture worth a thousand words.
Or maybe just two: “’Nuff Said”...
A large tenet of “Feminism” is to give fugly, talentless and generally worthless women a “voice”.
See the pic you posted. I’d turn fag before I’d bang it.
One could allege you’d be turning fag if you *did* hit that.
I haven’t pulled this one out for a while, but it’s perfect for this article:
“I %#$!ing hate, hate, HATE, HATE Republicans!”
“Why?”
“Because they’re so full of hate.”
BRAVO!!!
Announcer: We now return to the 42nd Annual Nobel Prize Awards. Here again your host, Whoopi Goldberg. [the audience applauds]
Whoopi:Republicans are so stupid. [the crowd laughs] I hate Republicans. [the audience laughs] Republicans are so stupid. [the audience laughs]
” One could allege you’d be turning fag if you *did* hit that.”
More like ontological certitude : )
Whiten her teeth a little eye make up and.... Naw.....Guilty.
As life isn’t hard enough without making up imaginary problems to overcome. GloBULL warming is a religion. Save Gaia. I say pump Gaia for all she’s worth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.