Democrat as an adjective??

[Ramlick]

Why do I hear so many Republican partisans (especially those of the social conservative stripe) use the term "democrat" as an adjective as in "democrat counties" or democrat justices"???? The adjective is "democratic" as in "democratic counties", so what exactly is going on. I hear it used that way by more and more right wingers all the time. Just heard it used that way by Limbaugh today, as a matter of fact.

I've even watched Chris Matthews correct people on it. Twice.

But I can't help but wonder why they're doing it.

Please, someone explain what's it all about.

 

[Ambrosious]

Why do I hear so many Republican partisans (especially those of the social conservative stripe) use the term "democrat" as an adjective as in "democrat counties" or democrat justices"????

I use it as an expletive.

 

[Harvey Wallbanger]

It all has to do with distinctions. We live in a democratic republic. If someone refers to a democratic county, it's redundant because they are all democratic. If someone refers to a Democrat county, it means that it is predominantly Democrats, meaning the political party. This is grammatically incorrect, but offers the distinction between a system of government and a political philosophy.

 

[Ramlick]

Harvey,

Ahh, so that's what's behind it?

But all the counties are also Republican too, no? If this country is a democratic republic, then we are all democrats, and we are all republicans, so there's no need to say "democrat" counties and be grammatically incorrect.

People who use the term incorrectly are just making themselves look stupid, and they ought to realize it. Partisans do it for the sake of irritating Democrats, I think. But when they do, they undermine their credibility.

 

[Laurel]

LMAO @ Ambrosious!

I agree, Ramlick. It's a way to divide people - label them, then they are not like us. Like calling someone a "liberal" as though it were a bad thing. It's not, as anyone who understands what Liberalism actually is and doesn't think it's a synonym for Communism, but the way it's said makes it sound like they're saying "Nazi".

It's a Rush Limbaugh invention, this name-calling. Gives an enemy to those who need one. It's not P.C. to blame your problems on Blacks or immigrants, but "liberals" are fair game. And the fact that the "liberals" are often "in league" with the "niggers/Jews/Japs/fags" makes this attitude even more attractive for some.

What's funniest is that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are not parties - they're viewpoints. There are liberal Republicans and there are conservative Democrats.

I don't use the term "conservative" like that, but I'm also aware that life is much more complicated than that. PEOPLE are more complicated than that. Anyone who believes and votes straight party line is ignorant, IMHO. No party or belief has a monopoly on Truth.

That said, I've become increasingly disgusted with the GOP's divisiveness. The Republican party has spent the last few years name-calling and character-assassinating as a strategy. Divide people, give them an enemy, rile them up. Damn commie liberal Democrats! Damn Clinton! (History will look back much more fondly on Clinton than on the GOP partisans who sought to crush him, mark my words.) Destroying the American Way! And on and on...frothing at the mouth. At a time when more than ever we need to come together, they're name-calling and refusing to work with the Dems.

I think - as do many analysts on both sides - that the Republicans are overplaying their hand. In court, one of the GOP lawyers described the Democrat's plan as "evil" - which, I'm sure, the judge did not appreciate. They're trying to play on people's emotions rather than on hard facts.

 

[Unclebill]

Dazed and Amazed

Originally posted by Laurel
...Like calling someone a "liberal" as though it were a bad thing. It's not, as anyone who understands what Liberalism actually is and doesn't think it's a synonym for Communism, but the way it's said makes it sound like they're saying "Nazi". ...

Maybe you can explain what it means to be a Liberal, then.

From my observation of the philosophical positions they advocate, they seem to be somewhere in the collectivist/anarchist camp.

They want laws that apply to some but not themselves (much like the Communist Party elite of Soviet Russia or China). When the Congress came under Republican control, one of their first efforts was to remove the portions of many laws that exempted members of Congress from required compliance.

They want to have the power to confiscate my earnings and livelihood via a tax code that shelters them to use my earnings for "the benefit of society" (much like any collectivist government). The Republicans go along with this mentality to an extent but the Liberal Democrats are the most egregious by far in their attitude of begrudging tolerance toward private property rights.

For example, in California, for example, we recently got a sales tax reduction. Why? Because it was mandated by law that required it when the state surplus exceeded a certain percentage of the budget (5% I seem to remember). The state government heavily Democrat controlled, last summer went on a spending spree funding millions of dollars in public projects. The purpose? To bring the surplus below the trigger level. Well, they screwed up and didn't waste enough of the surplus and now must reduce the sales tax.

Along the same lines, for years they collected an illegally levied tax on vehicles imported to California from another state (the smog tax). Even after the state supreme ruled the tax illegal, they continued to collect it until finally they had exhausted all avenues of escape. Then, having collected this illegal tax for over ten years, the decided that they could only pay back what had been collected over the past five years or so. These are the Liberals which you offer as someone to be held in high esteem?

Their decisions as to how I should live my life are more enlightened than mine, thus they must dictate my choices. They want to decide what kind of car I may drive, what foods I may consume, etc. They want me to pay for services I do not want yet am not permitted to refuse in a free(?) society!

They are the one's who orchestrated the power de-regulation debacle in California this past summer and now are crying to get someone else to bail them out. These are the people for whom you say I should have respect and consideration? No thanks.

They assert I must be accepting and tolerant of others choices, decisions and opinions and if I disagree, they are not at all tolerant of my disagreement if I am so brazen as to express it. These are the people who decry censorship but want to take Dr. Laura off the air.

They are the people who are still trying to get e man into the presidency who has violated his oath of office as VP, who has violated laws which were passed as a direct result of his political party's actions and who has supported and praised a traitor.

Slick Willie Clinton has used his position in office to obstruct justice (an offense for which Nixon left office), he has used his position of authority to persecute people with the temerity to tell the truth about him, and is guilty of perjury and suborning perjurious depositions (he was held in contempt of court for the latter). The few in Congress with the courage to stand for justice were demagogued and suffered character assassination in a fashion never before publicly demonstrated that I can remember.

He was allowed to destroy the public image of people who had committed no crimes and whose moral lapses were far less egregious than his. The press in general were and still are his allies and are now supporting Gore in the same mindless fashion.

Last week, the Wallstreet Journal ran an article about the Algore crowd making 'quiet inquiries' into the personal background of electors (potential appointees to the Electoral College). This is the Liberal way of doing things. Is this what you endorse as a desirable future for America?

Originally posted by Laurel
It's a Rush Limbaugh invention, this name-calling. Gives an enemy to those who need one. It's not P.C. to blame your problems on Blacks or immigrants, but "liberals" are fair game. And the fact that the "liberals" are often "in league" with the "niggers/Jews/Japs/fags" makes this attitude even more attractive for some.

I got a clue for you. Rush Limbaugh did not invent name calling. He has engaged in what I consider a rude practice of distorting the pronunciation of a name for purposes of humor but he has never that I can remember engaged in character assassination. And I've listened to him on and off for about ten years. Generally, the information he puts forth is more honest and accurate then what I get from the network news programs. The big difference is that he defines himself as partisan Republican and Conservative.

And I think you have to admit to yourself even if to no one else that there are enough people who would love to crucify and discredit Rush Limbaugh that if they could get him in a lie or mistake and make it stick, they would be doing it at every opportunity. Why haven't they?

The news shows portray themselves as non-partisan objective reporters which is hardly the case.

Originally posted by Laurel
They're trying to play on people's emotions rather than on hard facts.

As to playing to emotion, that's all the Democrats have been doing the past eight years. Their campaigns are filled with lies and demagoguery and the press carries it like gospel.

Originally posted by Laurel
At a time when more than ever we need to come together, they're name-calling and refusing to work with the Dems.

If you think back to one of the budget battles 4 or 5 years ago, the Republicans in Congress went to the White House, talked with Clinton and came to an agreement. After the meeting and a handshake on the bargain, the Republicans emerged from the meeting and announced their agreement on the budget. Five minutes later, Clinton told the press that he agreed to no such thing. How's that for 'working together'?

Step back and take a seriously objective look and you'll see that it's the Democrats/Liberals who are masters of playing the divisive game to perfection. Look at the shameless statements they made in the previous election about the election of Republicans resulting in more black churches burning. I would think that is divisive and designed to stir racial disharmony more than it is designed to pull together and unite. How about you?

Remember a few years back when the Republican Congress wanted to reduce the rate of growth of the Federal Budget? The budget would still increase but by a percentage less than the routine 10-12% per year. It would actually be at the rate of inflation, at the time about 4% or so. The Democrat mantra was Budget Cuts! The press mantra was Budget Cuts. Both were lies but it didn't matter. These are the Liberals you ask me to respect?

I respect you right to respect them and champion them. I spent 26 years in the military ready to defend your right to do so. But please, have enough respect for me to not ask me to respect this despicable ideology.

And for Ramlick, no, we're not all republicans and democrats. I am a Libertarian which is close to the philosophical position of those who founded this nation as opposed to the thugs who control it today.

 

[Ramlick]

UncleBill,

That last post was such a long monologue I would have sworn it came from that Rush windbag.

 

[Unclebill]

Part of the information came via his program, I'll admit. However, the philosophical ideas addressed are derived from a long and careful study of Ayn Rand.

I consider her to be the philosophical intellectual of the millenium if not of all time. She started from ground zero and built a philosophy that is consistent and that integrates into every facet of human endeavor without contradiction.

She provided in a coherent and defined form the moral and ethical basis for the United States of America as conceived and established by the Founding Fathers, something never before available or achieved.

As for Rush, as I noted earlier, he admits to being biased in his presentation and even then he provides a more honest and accurate rendition of facts than does the media at large.

Another thing I find so interesting and entertaining about Rush is that he seems totally oblivious to his own dichotomies as do his callers and I suspect virtually all of his listeners. If you've listened to him, can you identify a couple of them?

So you can demean him with name-calling if you like, but he is far more honest and accurate than the 'unbiased media' who do most of the news reporting if you're willing to take an objective rational view. And he doesn't pretend to be something he's not as do they who portray themselves as unbiased.

 

[Laurel]

Uncle Bill, if you continue to compare those left of center to the Communist Party, I shall began calling all those right of center Fascists.

Neither would be true. They are oversimplifications, which - like name-calling - make the world so much simpler than it actually is.

Which is the point of this thread, I suppose. I don't want to do a whole schpiel on Liberalism right now because I'm in the middle of updating the site. However, I will say that your remarks are on the whole inaccurate and slanted.

Name 5 artists or inventors that could be considered Conservatives, by the current definition of Conservative.

America is the wonderful place that it is because we realize that the health of the entire country is important. That's not Mao or Marx, that's the way society works. If this were not true - if the individual truly did not need other individuals - there would be no need for society. When the Khmer Rouge killed their thinkers, writers, and philosophers, they set their society back irretrievably. Social Darwinists would say the Khmer were completely within their rights to kill those people, because they COULD. The strong survive, right?

But that doesn't wash. A society NEEDS its thinkers, its intellects. Yet many Conservatives truly believe that those who are born into poverty DESERVE their station in life. They throw away minds and bodies that could make our country - and this world - a better place.

Money? I could gave a crap about money. Have you seen places where the Government doesn't have the resources to take care of its people? Have you ever driven in India? The roads are hellacious. Take money out of my paycheck, use it to take care of the roads, the schools, the military, law enforcement, and all those things that enable me to be productive and happy. Then, LEAVE ME ALONE.

This is where we're in agreement. The government should NOT legislate morality. The War on Drugs, anti-choice, the criminalization of flag burning, pornography, and certain religions - these are the priorities of the Right, NOT the left you so demonize. The Right wants to meddle in my private life. Fuck that!

I make my living at freelance graphic design. My clients are companies which market to middle-class individuals. Why? Because they have money to spend on goods. It is, therefore, in my best interest that ALL of America - not just certain bits of it - are prosperous. A wide gap between the haves and have-nots is bad not just for those dirty poor people, but for anyone who sells anything. It is in the best financial interest of Corporate America that we educate and care for our people. Otherwise, who will buy their services? The top 10%? Do you think Nabisco makes its money off the top 10%?

Also, there's something called compassion. As a kid who grew up poor, I cannot just sit back and say "damn poor people, get off yer lazy asses!" My dad was many things, but he was also a hard worker - 12-15 hours a day sometimes, all for barely enough to feed us. I didn't choose to be born into a poor family. I'd say most don't. I am eternally grateful for the public education and the college loans the government provided me.

For you to sit there and tell me that you can't part with a tiny fraction of your money - America has the LOWEST tax rate of any civilized country - to improve the readiness of our military, the quality of our environment, and the quality of our people is the height of selfishness.

Democrats are pro-social welfare. Republicans and Conservatives are pro-corporate welfare. Can you guess which takes more out of my paycheck? HINT: it's not the people...

 

[Laurel]

As for Rush, as I noted earlier, he admits to being biased in his presentation and even then he provides a more honest and accurate rendition of facts than does the media at large.

Rush is a Republican party hack. I can forgive this because HE realizes this. He's said in interviews (in not so many words) that he considers himself an entertainer. Much of what he says is not entirely true. Like when he said, in response to an environmentalist's quote, that there are more trees in the US today than 200 years ago. This is technically true, only because 200 years ago the US was 13 or so colonies clustered on the east coast, and now it's obviously much larger. Tricky, huh?

It's the people who take his word as God that worry me. That's not how he intends it. He - like Imus, Howard Stern, and other radio personalities - are just giving you something to listen to on the drive home.

 

[Unclebill]

Democrats are pro-social welfare. Republicans and Conservatives are pro-corporate welfare. Can you guess which takes more out of my paycheck? HINT: it's not the people...

I have never disagreed with you. If you read other posts, you will see that I've said all along the difference between the two is not fundamental underlying principles but degree. Both are collectivist minded. The Conservative/Republicans generally are for a lesser degree than the Liberals/Democrats but are on the same track.

And just to be clear about one thing. Corporations do NOT pay taxes. They hever have and they never will. Every time a politician tells you he wants to raise more money for whatever collectivist project he's dreamed up, he's lying.

The corporation is the middle man who collects the tax from you and passes it along to the government. YOU pay the corporate tax in the products you buy.

To the corporation it's just another business cost passed along to the consumer and until the American people get their heads out of their asses and realize this, politicians (especially the Democrats who are the true masters of the divide and conquer tactic) are going to use the this lie to sell you higher and higher taxes. And the cost passed on to you is higher than the tax because the corporation has to hire batteries of accountants and attorneys to deal with extraordinarily complex tax laws and regulations.

On another thread I addressed the idea of the government's participation in and economy and that it is ALWAYS a liability. Private enterprise ALWAYS produces a better cheaper solution than government.

If you want to see true prosperity, get government thieves out of the economy for the most part.

As to the poor, I was born to a fairly poor background also. I've been on my own supporting myself since I was 18. I worked to earn what I have. It wasn't given to me or inherited. By what legitimate principle does some political hack steal my earnings and livelihood to give away?

Use any euphemism you like but it's still theft when it's taken against my wishes. I support my family. I give to charities. They produce beneficial results at 80%-95% efficiency, i. e., 80-95% of their donations get to the beneficiaries.

Government on the other hand collects far more in coercive taxation and distributes it at about 20% efficiency. The rest goes to bureaucratic administrators who could otherwise be gainfully employed in a productive industry helping to expand our economy rather than in government draining productive capacity. Which is the better investment? Which achieves a better result for society?

Private charity provides help to people who need it while they need it. It doesn't produce generations of families on handouts of stolen property. That is precisely what government "charity", i. e., socialist welfare does achieve.

Government welfare is set up to get people on welfare and keep them there. The labyrinthine rules and regulations regarding earnings and all the other bureaucatic crap involved makes it very difficult to become self-sustaining once you allow yourself into the welfare snare. This is not beneficial to the individual in the situation nor to the society as a whole.

And I agree that Rush is a Republican hack. He openly admits that. The people who believe him do give me cause for concern. But he does not advocate criminal action as the means to his ends to any great extent. There are some notable contradictions in a lot of his rhetoric to which he is blind but essentially he's an honest man. That is fundamentally true of the majority of Republicans with whome I have experience.

On the other hand, we have the Democrats who champion Bill Clinton who is guilty of multiple crimes while in office (some of which Nixon was forced from office for committing). But the Democrats rally around him as a hero. What's wrong with this picture?

And Algore, who has been his protege for eight years and exhibited the same behavioral tendencies is not doing everything he can to take up where Slick Willie left off. A man who lies compulsively, who disregards laws inconventient to him, who takes both sides of a position when its beneficial is not someone I wish to see in a position to exert the power of the presidency. This man has no allegiance to anything beyond Algore.

If you wish to call those to the right of center Fascict, have at it. There's a measure of truth there and I understand in this venue that there is not space for totally accurate specificity. My major point remains that between the two political systems at odds in the United States, there isn't really much difference beyond the degree of totalitarianism they seek to invoke. The Republicans want less because they understand the damage it does economically while the Democrats either don't seem to know or just don't care. Maybe the Democrats (upper echelon leadership vice rank and file) have the "I've got mine, fuck the rest of 'em" attitude, kinda' like Barbara Striesand.

 

[naudiz]

Government welfare is set up to get people on welfare and keep them there.

I just want to address that little snippet there.

I've already posted about being on an insurance plan that is designed for low/no income people. There is a Catch-22 that if I get a job, I lose the insurance, which means I lose access to medication I need to function, which means I'd be unable to work, which means I'd lose the job. Where would that leave me? Right back on the state's insurance plan. Do I want to work? More than anything. Do I dare get a job? Not if I want to stay healthy.

That's not the one that gets me, though. The one that gets me is this. A few years ago, I had a back injury that put me out of work. When the following incident happened I was still on the mend, and since by the time it takes to get on disability I would have starved to death on the streets, I instead looked into general welfare - just long enough to get back on my feet again.

I called for information, since I had no idea what this welfare stuff was about, having never been on it. This was all off the record, but I was asked if I was single. I said yes. Then I was asked did I have children. I replied no, I did not. I was then asked if I had a boyfriend. I thought that was a bit odd, but I said yes, I did. Then - I am not kidding - I was asked how I felt about having a child out of wedlock, because that would be a surefire way of getting on a program.

I was sure I didn't hear that right, so I did clarify: let me get this straight, you are telling me I should bring a child into this world for the sole purpose of getting accepted onto a welfare program.

I was asked how badly did I want the money.

I'll admit - I am no good at politics. I don't think there are any easy answers, so I'm not going to spout off any. I do know this much though: that was pretty fucked up, right there.

 

[Harvey Wallbanger]

Rush Limbaugh is a very clever man. No one has the profile of his faithful audience pegged as well, except for maybe Vince McMahon. If right-wing redneck drivel is what ditto-heads crave, he's more than willing to serve it up.

Callers who can stand toe-to-toe with him are screened, if one slips through the screening, they are silenced by a commercial break. Faithful Limbaugh listeners all have one thing in common: They believe they are more well-informed than the rest of us.

 

[Unclebill]

Rush Limbaugh is a very clever man. No one has the profile of his faithful audience pegged as well, except for maybe Vince McMahon. If right-wing redneck drivel is what ditto-heads crave, he's more than willing to serve it up.

Callers who can stand toe-to-toe with him are screened, if one slips through the screening, they are silenced by a commercial break. Faithful Limbaugh listeners all have one thing in common: They believe they are more well-informed than the rest of us.

I'm really curious about the redneck drivel you mentioned. I grew up in the south and I served with a few rednecks in the Navy. I don't hear that general drift of attitude from Limbaugh but then I don't have an axe to grind with him any more than I do with the left.

I don't know about his audience at large but for my own perception, based on what he presents compared to what the mainstream media presents, he does give a much more even handed report of the facts. I don't see his audience necessarily better informed if he is is their sole source of news, but what they get is certainly more accurate and balanced.

And he does not claim to be unbiased as do the major news outlets whose reporting is extremely biased.

 

[Harvey Wallbanger]

Limbaugh is a very entertaining radio show host. He often defaults to this when he is called on his half-truths, he can have it both ways. I don't think he really believes all that he says, it's carefully tailored to the idiots that take his word as gospel. His views on the environment have no scientific basis, yet he spews this nonsense authoritively.

You hardly ever see him on other people's shows anymore, because he's been revealed as the uneducated blow-hard he really is too many times. He's much safer in his own world where he takes calls from those that can't challenge him on these and other issues he is not qualified to speak on. He is not a dope, the ditto-heads are the dopes.

Rush mixes his bullshit with a good amount of common sense, any good manipulator can do that, but he labels it conservative. Anything stupid is called liberal.

If you hate homosexuals, feminists, animal lovers or any other group of people that aren't part of the right-wing, Rush will politely help you feel better about your intolerance and stupidity.

 

[Pakiville]

Why do I hear so many Republican partisans (especially those of the social conservative stripe) use the term "democrat" as an adjective as in "democrat counties" or democrat justices"???? The adjective is "democratic" as in "democratic counties", so what exactly is going on. I hear it used that way by more and more right wingers all the time. Just heard it used that way by Limbaugh today, as a matter of fact.

I've even watched Chris Matthews correct people on it. Twice.

But I can't help but wonder why they're doing it.

Please, someone explain what's it all about.

kepp drinking the obama ade bro!! lol

 

[lovetoread]

kepp drinking the obama ade bro!! lol

I love the with every bump.

 

[renard_ruse]

Why do I hear so many Republican partisans (especially those of the social conservative stripe) use the term "democrat" as an adjective as in "democrat counties" or democrat justices"???? The adjective is "democratic" as in "democratic counties", so what exactly is going on. I hear it used that way by more and more right wingers all the time. Just heard it used that way by Limbaugh today, as a matter of fact.

I've even watched Chris Matthews correct people on it. Twice.

But I can't help but wonder why they're doing it.

Please, someone explain what's it all about.

Onto iggy you go. Buy-bye!

 

[unregistered]

 

[renard_ruse]

Did you notice the date on his post?

I just did.