Tuesday, December 16, 2014


That big CIA ‘torture’ report? Americans just shrugged.
WAPO ^ | Dec. 15, 2014 | Aaron Blake 
Posted on 12/15/2014, 9:48:03 PM by PROCON
A new poll from the Pew Research Center is the first to gauge reactions to last week's big CIA report on "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- what agency critics call torture.

And the reaction is pretty muted.

The poll shows people says 51-29 percent than the CIA's methods were justified and 56-28 percent that the information gleaned helped prevent terror attacks.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

It’s Okay To Hate Republicans

In our era of polarization, one party is guiltier than the other!
In These Times ^ | December 15, 2014 | Professor Susan J. Douglas, University of Michigan 

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.

Ted Cruz Was Right, Again!

The American Thinker ^ | December 16, 2014 | Matthew Vadum 

The usual suspects are attacking Ted Cruz for doing his job.
Republicans and a chorus of conservative commentators are dumping on the sole conservative Republican senator from Texas because–the horror!–he dared to force his Senate colleagues to publicly take sides on President Obama's shameful extralegal unilateral immigration amnesty.
Apologists for Republican cowardice claim to be upset with Cruz because, as they claim, his parliamentary maneuvers to stymie the amnesty somehow allowed some objectionable Obama nominees to move forward in the confirmation process.
Of course, they're lying. All Obama nominees are objectionable–remember, our president is a red diaper baby–yet the Senate eventually caves to Obama on more or less all of them............Who really cares if a few bureaucrats who will be approved anyway by the incoming Republican Senate in the new year get to work a few weeks or months early?
What really infuriates namby-pamby Republican senators is that Cruz forced them to take a public stand on the president's unilateral amnesty. They know that the Republican Party base is mad as hell over the amnesty, and they don't feel the need to answer to mere hoi polloi. Bought off by the crony capitalist lobby, they support amnesty but don't want to face the electoral consequences for their betrayal of the American people. Just as Democrats don't want to get rid of poverty, Republicans in leadership don't want to stop the amnesty(or get rid of Obamacare, for that matter). They need villains against which to rail.
Just about nobody in the conservative punditry seems to be getting the story right. They are regurgitating an easily digested talking point generated by Democrats and the Senate's RINO establishment. If it hadn't been for Cruz,a slew of Obama nominees would still be sucking their thumbs in a state of constitutional limbo,they'd have us believe.
And as usual,they're wrong about Cruz....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...





911 Call


Democrats then!


Our Leader?


Because they work!






The Same!




Mad Bomber!




Big Sister


Now the Bible gets rewritten!


and the Democrats cried...




Raise your hands!