I think it is unfair to judge based on political affiliation.

Not to go all Godwin on you, but there are times historically when you certainly can judge a person based on their political affiliation.

eta: To clarify I'm certainly not comparing anybody currently to Nazis, nor arguing that Republicans kick their dogs. Just arguing that the blanket statement is too general.

Also eta: I'm still pissed at the Whigs.

Christians, of course, are notorious for mistreating pets.

I think when we get to the point of seeing a whole group of people (French, Hindus, red-heads, Communists, Vegans) as less than human, we risk being less human ourselves.

I also would think that such statements can be treated with a little less derision.

As a party, I find the Republican Party policy line unfriendly to women's issues. However, again, not an assumption I direct at individuals who define themselves as conservative until I've sussed them out. I direct the same assumption to anyone I meet. I went to school in a liberal arts hippy haven. I ran into some appalling attitudes (to me) on women, animals, the environment, books, wine, chocolate, sex, squirrels, drugs, apple vs. pc, cilantro...etc.

Y'know, somehow I ended up with a best friend who is not a reader and who doesn't like chocolate. I don't even know how that happened. I dare not ask her stance on cilantro or squirrels, but at least we have our love of Apple products in common.

I'm being very specific to the context. Deeds, not words, you hippy liberal SFican! And there have been plenty of affiliations for show, but I'm too damn lazy to cite.

I love you, msbelle.

I think it is unfair to judge based on political affiliation. There are equal opportunity assholes.

Just joining my voice to those raising objections to this sort of insulting generalization. Much of my family on both sides is Conservative, and the bulk of them of them are fonder of and more caring toward animals than I am despite my being one of the Leftmost-leaning.

Things in here are skirting worryingly close to the kind of "those who disagree with me aren't really people with real feelings" demonization that the worst elements of the Religious Right employ against their political enemies. Not cool.

Just arguing that the blanket statement is too general.

You know how much I hate sweeping generalizations, but I really do think pushing an "except for Nazis!" exception here is missing the point.

pushing an "except for Nazis!" exception here is missing the point

We'll be sure to put in the note when we put it to a vote, just in case.

I think the dog incident is very telling about Romney, as is Gingrich's treatment of his wives and Ron Paul's support of the Trilateral Commission conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't tar the whole party with those brushes.