Fox goes nuts...and other right wing hits
ohhh....how the talking points change :wiseguy:
Printable View
Fox goes nuts...and other right wing hits
ohhh....how the talking points change :wiseguy:
Wow, and they said all that with a straight face. Rush Limberger has obviously been eating sour grapes.
I don't know why certain aspects the American right rely so heavily on guy who never graduated college and is so clearly not an average Joe either, anymore. We need new heroes.
In a way Rush is easier to accept...he´s just one guy with a loud-mouth radio show who thinks he´s Archie Bunker.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Now...Fox News....that´s an entire TV station full of those crazy wingnuts....now that´s scary :wall:
Rush needs a new connection for his happy pills. He's obviously suffering withdrawal symptoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
Yes, but now MSNBC legitimizes Fox, wouldn't you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I am not familiar with MSNBC...I don´t get them on cable over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
are they nutty like this but on the opposite direction?....if so...that´s wrong too.
but I wouldn´t call that "legitimization"....this crap isn´t news broadcasting...it´s propaganda.... and 2 wrongs don´t make a right.
Actually - 2 wrongs can make a right. It accurately represents the breakdown in the US. We have our news (Fox), they have theirs (MSNBC), people in the middle have one too (CNN - I hope that it realizes the opportunity it has to really define a central position and become the legitimate channel). I appreciate that the networks are showing us the cards that we know they are holding anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
If anyone wants to learn anything, they should watch all 3 channels. It will force them to think a bit harder for themselves when they try to find out which side is lying to them at various times.
Limbaugh is an abomination of God. Nothing more than a drug addicted coward who makes money by tearing others down using a moral scale that he can't even live up to. Advocating a failing republic for patisian gain is not something an American does.
Well, I'm sure Obama's New World Order will take care of Rush Limbaugh soon enough. :mellow:
Priceless...
The United States has not "broken down."
We go through these bouts of hyper-partisanship from time to time.
1796 through 1808 or so: Hamiltonians v Jeffersonians. All of the papers during that stretch make the current Fox or MSNBC efforts look tame.
1850 through 1865: North v South -- several hundreds of thousands dead for a finisher.
1918 through 1925: Evil internationalists (Wilson & Dems) v. reactionary isolationists (Harding et al). Teapot dome scandals etc.
1990 to present: current spate of "us v them"ing.
As the good book says, "this too shall pass."
Seamus- you forgot the 1820's when his opponent's accused Andrew Jackson's wife of baring an illegitimate child outside of marriage(In other words, being a *rhymes with "DOOR"*), with Jackson promptly accusing them of harassing her to death after she suffered a stroke just before the election.
But yeah, it does make one wonder what their true purpose is, trying to actively encourage others to oppose a newly inaugurated President.
What's so shocking? If you disagree with what someone is trying to do, you want them to fail. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
I never said it was shocking. Just that I was curious what the true motive is, since he's talking out both sides of his mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Hmm, not sure I can go there. I thought the invasion of Iraq was maybe the most misguided foreign policy decision of my lifetime, but I hoped it would succeed. If it had all been over in a few weeks, and Iraq paid for its own (brief) occupation, and a Jeffersonian democracy flowered between the Tigris and Euphrates, I would have been relieved and pleased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
By your logic I should have been fervently wishing for OIF2 to fail. That's kinda messed up.
I'm beginning to get the impression that Republican's don't really want to return to power anytime soon.
He disagrees with trying to fix the economy? :stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Actually, by my logic, you would've been hoping for the AUMF vote to go down in defeat and for the president's foreign policy to be repudiated. But hey, have fun putting words in my mouth. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Lemur, I can't believe you gave Xiahou the bird. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I didn't see any such distinctions in the way you phrased it originally, an I don't see any such distinctions in the words coming from Limbaugh, Hannity or Malkin. I certainly accept your clarification, but that info wasn't there originally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Do you think Malkin, Hannity and Limbaugh have equally fine and nuanced positions, or are they up to their usual demagoguery? I suspect the latter.
It was unpatriotic to oppose Bush, but it's deeply patriotic to oppose Obama. Sounds about right for their level of discourse.
Limbaugh wants Reaganesque conservatism back at the forefront. Currently, the only standard bearer for that is Sarah Palin. I think its understandable that he's lashing out in frustration. He actually is consistent in that he took the same attitude with Clinton...as in :daisy: the honeymoon, any admin advancing liberal/socialist/big government ideas must be opposed at every turn. He was also far more critical of Bush's big gov/socialist compromises than were the others named.
Hannity has always been a GOP pit-bull. He pays lip service to overarching conservative doctrine but always "happens" to come down on the side of simplistic support for the attack machine wing of the GOP. His credibility with me is NOT affected by this latest round of commentary -- negative numbers are only an imaginary concept after all. I'm down to about 10 minutes max of him per radio program before I flip to NPR or local sports.
Can't speak to Malkin; don't read/listen to much of Malkin's stuff.
The Divine Leader has spoken!
Wait just am minute here!:inquisitive:
You are discussing News from ?The Daily Show???:embarassed:
It isn’t like they are not coming from a particular point of view now is it.
It is a comedy show for, god sake! And a bit left of center too….
If you want to know where an administration stands look at the appointments.
If you find you don’t like the people they are surrounding themselves with, then chances are you are not going to like the policies.
It says a lot more than all of the partisan rhetoric!
:laugh4:
To paraphrase a popular saying, "There is no 'you' in 'bipartisan'." Obama isn't going to score points by fingerpointing at the folks he's trying to woo. There was similar nonsense going on during debate over the first stimulus package back in September/October. These boys need to learn how to play nicely together if they really want to get things accomplished. This is where hockey-mom Palin could step in to straighten the boys out. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Modern day press is about selling advert space, journalistic integrity is only used to aid that endeavour where it is viable. Where it is more profitable for a lack of integrity it is done. Shock jocks sell more then the rest, so they are vetted by the board.
Tabloids sell a lot more when they have opposition to pick a fight with. And having an opposing tabloid is like giving both of them a money press.
They can rip into each other and the readers can have fun as they read their modern day equivalent of the circus. The more hyperbolic and agreeable with their already established world view the better. Its all pie in the face slapstick commentary. Who needs accountability, substance, context, critique and insight into an issue when you can reconfirm that you are right and have fun doing it.
it could be worse....we could be discussing "news" from Fox News....then we would really be in the realm of science fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
The daily show simply showed footage of Fox News and Rush acting like fools.
Is it partisan rhetoric to simply quoting people you don´t agree with saying dumb things?
one can´t say something stupid and then when it is pointed out say that pointing it out is partisan rhetoric.
that´s like showing a video of a cat being run over by a truck and then claim the cat committed suicide....let´s get back to reality shall we? ~:rolleyes:
I have not seen Fox News for quite a few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
If the network is still set up the way it was though, then you are making a silly distinction.
All of those “Opinion Shows” are not pretending to be News and come at their subjects in an unabashed political viewpoint.
In their actual News Broadcasts, and yes those were few, their news was much more balanced than what you could get elsewhere.
I would much prefer to have the simple facts and make my own decisions as to what it really means than be feed tripe colored for consumption for those with a strict political agenda and have it called News.
I was making no political arguments in my post. I only pointed out what it was.
I don’t think any better of the Democans than I do of the Republicrats.
It’s kind of like keeping mosquitoes for pets…you should know that at some point you are going to be bitten…
:yes:
:laugh4:
I don't think it's dawned on the Republicans in the House yet just how out in the wilderness they are. I personally think the Democrats WELCOME this sort of 'loyal opposition', as it just makes for even wider margins next election cycle and they just might get the 61st senate seat. And then you'll REALLY see a big 'all about us' moment commence.
Seriously, I'm not saying lay down and abandon your principles. But this is beyond tilting at windmills. If Republicans ever want more than 170 house seats or 35 senate seats again, they're going to have to learn do something other than whine and moan about Democrats.
The one group that I believe DOES realize just how precarious their position has become is the Senate Republicans, and they clearly are trying to get on board and 'mold', not block.
Honestly, as a fiscal conservative, I can't tell the difference between the parties anymore. And when John Boehner goes from "whatever the president needs, we'll sign the check" to "let's represent the taxpayer" in the span of 24 hours around Jan 20th, it rings more than a little hollow.
I think you hit the crux of the problem there. They're not so much the loyal opposition now as opposed to the loyal...what? Psychologically they're more comfortable playing the role of the underdog. The party forgot how to lead. It's also sad how many "conservatives" are rallying around Ronald Regan now. He was a great President (one of the best) but where is the future? Obama is right in many respects: Hope and change (even as ill-defined as it was during the campaign) strikes a powerful cord with the American people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism embodied "hope and change."
The "Contract with America" embodied the hopes for a smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
But after Clinton whipped Newt and successfully lambasted him as the "Gingrich that stole Christmas" the only stand the GOP took was:
"What can I do to keep my seat?"
The answer most hit upon was to nuance and parse a la Clinton -- but that has NEVER been the strength of the GOP. That approach has always been the hallmark of the great Dem political machines. We played the other person's game and got our :daisy: handed to us. Unfortunately, all I'm seeing from the GOP so far is more of the same.
Let's say mean things about every Dem scandal; let's assert ourselves as good pork providers; let's make Obama look bad by hammering one of his nominees....DRECK!!!!!!
Very astute analysis by both Don and Seamus. Let us hope that the Republican party regains its footing in the next couple of years; we can't survive long as a one-party nation, and I would really like the alternative to be sensible and palatable.
A good take on Rush Limbaugh's latest:
He’s out on a limb, Rush. His current themes are about Obama’s radicalism, which, with every day of the new administration, seems a less and less sellable image, and—say-again?—the new president’s racism. Obama’s the racist, you see, in one of those message inversions coded so as to speak to actual racists. (“Racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left.”)
It’s an unaccustomed verbal flailing: “Most of these guys came alive in the Civil Rights battles of the Sixties…” (When Barack Obama was under seven). Obama is being forced on us by a left-wing, racist, homosexual conspiracy: “We’re being told we have to bend over and grab the ankles.”
The game the president is playing is to make a testy, easy-to-arouse, fun-to-rankle Rush come to stand for an odd-ball, tone-deaf, blowhard far right that the rest of the desperate-to-be-liked Republican Party will eagerly distance itself from (if Rush is trying to capitalize on the panty-waist demeanor of so many of his fellow Republicans, he’s also got to suspect that they’ll sell him out.)
Rush’s game is to try to stay in the game. To find some plausible way to characterize and ridicule the president, which will justify the $400 million what-were-they-thinking contract he signed with Clear Channel over the summer. The pressure is on.
*sigh* The same was said in 1992. The fact is that even though he isn't as good as he used to be he still is the best. Another Limbaugh fat joke? How does Michael Moore escape such shallow criticism? The thought that Limbaugh could be pushed into obscurity by his chief ideological rival, President Obama, is little more than wishful thinking on the writer's part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Another Limbaugh fat joke? How does Michael Moore escape such shallow criticism?
err.. Michael Moore doesn't have cheap jokes made about his weight ? i must have been hallucinating these last few years...
and btw...have you seen Michael Moore lately?...the dude has lost a LOT of weight....so the jokes wouldn´t make sense anymore anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Also, I believe that men who are hip-deep in identity and victim politics, men who are willing to use anything and everything to attack their "enemies," men like, oh, Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, deserve to get hit with fat jokes.
It's not as though they would refrain from the lowest common denominator to abuse their ideological opposites.
Yeah, the link showed some comically inept analysis.... The president of the country calling out of a talk radio show host will isolate him? More like free advertising. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Interestingly, just as I posted this, I caught a segment from none other than Chris Matthews were they discussed what a mistake it was for Obama to call out Limbaugh by name. I believe Matthews words were "My heart would have lusted after such a mention" during the Bush administration. They said it could set him up as the de facto leader of the Republicans.
Here's some more analysis for your viewing pleasure:
Limbaugh drew huge coverage in the days leading up to Obama's inauguration when he declared that he hoped the new president would fail -- part of a broader condemnation of liberalism in the country.
Obama upped the ante late last week when in a private meeting with Republicans he referenced Limbaugh's brand of politics as a big reason why major legislation hadn't been passed in years.
Then on Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs offered another sly provocation of Limbaugh; asked to expand on Obama's comments about the talk show host, Gibbs demurred and then added: "Tell [Rush] I said hi."
Not surprisingly, Limbaugh took the bait. Of Obama, he said: "He's obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, then he is of say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."
All of the back and forth between Limbaugh and Obama comes just days before the members of the Republican National Committee gather in Washington to elect the organization's next chairman -- a race that has been badly overshadowed by the first days of Obama's presidency.
"The party is in transition," said Ed Rogers, a Republican lobbyist and close ally of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. "Our leaders have not found their voice or direction....Limbaugh is filling a vacuum in a world that requires a constant media counter-point."
They said it could set him up as the de facto leader of the Republicans.
Wouldn't that work out quite well for Obama and Democrats, much better have this partisan hack as your opposition than some well spoken intelligent republican... I now who i'd rather have as an opponent.... or as my opponents voice...
To put it another way. How much would the Republicans love it to have Michael Moore as the defacto leader of the Democrats?
Politicians are great at giving out pork. Free publicity is another form of pork, particular for the media. So one has to question and understand 'Why?'. Does RL's rants strengthen or weaken the Republicans position at the polls? Is he preaching to the converted or is he winning the fence sitters, the very broad moderate middle who get overlooked when extremist politics gets played.
Who is gaining the most advantage to having RL as the mouthpiece? :book:
Who is gaining the most advantage to having RL as the mouthpiece?
Well probably RL himself first... and then maybe the political party you were thinking off...
The Democrats have always been better at attacking and marginalizing their opponents than the Republicans have.
It is just more of the same.
If RL plays into their hands then he is dumb. If he counter them and wins some how he gets more affiliates and a big pay raise.
The only reason the guy is there is because people like to here someone express their own values. Some one else will only take his place.
The Republicans could go away but people are not going to stop being conservative or liberal as defined by the parties. The will just get a new one…and one without much of the baggage that this one has. It might even be a good thing.
Some how the Democrats keep reinventing them selves even when you think they are on their last legs. I don’t know if that is good or bad. I suppose they just shift to where they think the people are.
Prior to FDR they were where the Republicans are now. Aimless!
How did Will Rogers put it; I don’t belong to any organized political party. I’m a Democrat!
Today it is true for the other side…but they have reversed their political positions.
Another 100 years and they may be reversed again.
A very astute summation from a very astute guy:
Thus the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.
This is not good. We need at least two parties in this country, and it does nobody any good if one of them curls up and loses itself in a fit of ideological-purity purges.
And speaking of ideological purity, didja notice how the guy who dared to criticize Rush had to go grovelling for forgiveness?
Hasn't McCain disproved the Democrat-lite strategy of elections? If the GOP is damaged by opposing Obama, it's because they aren't explaining themselves well enough. How will they contrast themselves as an alternative to the Democrats by going along with everything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Obama's new definition of "bipartisanship" is "agreeing with us". House Republicans were essentially shut out of the crafting of the stimulus bill, yet they're the bad guys for then opposing it? It sounds to me like the administration just wants Republican support as cover for when this turd of a bill starts to stink. :wink:
Fixed. I love how the Congressional Repubs woke up January 21st and discovered that our nation runs a deficit. Who knew? And they don't like it one bit! Why, if they had know about this "deficit" thingy back when they had absolute power, they would have, well, thought about doing something about it. But now that they're the minority party, by gum, they're angry as hell about debt and unbalanced budgets!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Would you prefer it if they were still on the "Yay deficits, yay pork!" bandwagon with the Democrats? Democrats have gone from whining about fiscal responsibility to piling up the pork so fast that there was a sonic boom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The Republicans were elected on very conservative platforms. By the time Bush got into office, they had already forgotten most of their promises in favor of trying to feather their own nests. They got voted out of power and are now making an attempt at returning to the principles that got them elected and we're being told it will be the death of them? :dizzy2:
I would prefer that they admit they have been part of the problem, and show some hint of shame or remorse. By my calculations, the Repubs have been bigger spenders than the Dems, and yet they claim to adhere to fiscal conservatism. And now that they're the minority, suddenly they're dead serious about deficits. It only took them eight days or so. It's laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Do you believe the the Gov attempting to do anything to shorten the recession, X?
Oh come on Lemur! You are surprised that the party in office spends like there is no tomorrow while the opposition complains? And you think that Politicians should apologize?
Aren’t you the guy that is crying that two parties are needed?
Come on the only difference in the parties is which lie they choose to tell and which one is in office spending the country into a hole!
:laugh4:
Yes. Do you believe that this "stimulus" bill is anything other than a Christmas tree for Congress to hang all their pet projects on, and ram it through using our economic crisis as cover?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Ask Gibbs- resodding the Mall would've been stimulus. Or ask Pelosi- handing out birth control is stimulus! If the government is handing out money- it's stimulus. Why do you hate the economy?
Now that would cause a death spiral. "Sorry America, we were wrong, it's all our fault. Vote for us now, k?" :laugh4:Quote:
I would prefer that they admit they have been part of the problem, and show some hint of shame or remorse.
I honestly don't know about that. It could very well be just as bad as the Patriot Act most of these same Republican jokers rammed through after 9/11. It's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
What is it with Republicans and sexual panic? Here's a doctor talking about contraception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
To understand how this works, it is helpful to look at California's experience with a state-funded contraception and family planning initiative for women with incomes between 100% and 200% of the poverty level:
Four years after implementing the program, California saved an estimated $500 million in public health care spending, net of what they spent on the program itself. In fact, for every dollar invested in the program, the state of California saved an estimated $5.33, over a period of five years. These are conservative estimates that do not include money saved through increased productivity and cost savings from reductions in paid medical leave and sick days that result from unplanned pregnancies. Few other public spending plans can boast such a positive return on investment.
Or, as Drudge would say, Nancy Pelosi is handing out a trillion dollars' worth of STD-ridden condoms to illegal immigrants for gay sex while the earth enters a new ice age.
Awww, is that a troll? How cute. I was never a fan of the PATRIOT ACT though. Keep trying, you'll find some better bait eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Really though, the two are about as completely unrelated as two bills could be. We're talking about a wasteful spending bill that is approaching almost 1 trillion dollars and your only response is "but the patriot act!". :dizzy2:
I think "Nofuzzydreams" said it best:Quote:
What is it with Republicans and sexual panic? Here's a doctor talking about contraception.
To understand how this works, it is helpful to look at California's experience with a state-funded contraception and family planning initiative for women with incomes between 100% and 200% of the poverty level:
Four years after implementing the program, California saved an estimated $500 million in public health care spending, net of what they spent on the program itself. In fact, for every dollar invested in the program, the state of California saved an estimated $5.33, over a period of five years. These are conservative estimates that do not include money saved through increased productivity and cost savings from reductions in paid medical leave and sick days that result from unplanned pregnancies. Few other public spending plans can boast such a positive return on investment.
Or, as Drudge would say, Nancy Pelosi is handing out a trillion dollars' worth of STD-ridden condoms to illegal immigrants for gay sex while the earth enters a new ice age.
The argument you put forth is that birth control is good policy because it saves the healthcare system money. Saving the healthcare system money is NOT stimulus. It does not belong in an emergency stimulus bull. It's a textbook example of Democrats slipping their wishlists into the bill and trying to label it all stimulus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nofuzzydreams
And here I thought I was being honest by saying, "I don't know."Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I see your point, although I think it's borderline silly to worry about small-change contraception funding in a bill of this size. But telling that Repubs would focus on it, all the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
-edit-
Here's an interesting alternative proposal:
Instead of fighting Dems on the dollar amount of spending, knowing that we would lose that fight in any event, we could have stood with Obama and called for large high-tech infrastructure projects that would employ large numbers of minorities in construction and white collar suburbanites in development. These projects (high speed rail corridors as an example) would also capture the imagination of the green close-in suburbs that are turning viciously against the GOP and have the strategic benefit of jamming up the young Dem members (Webb/Warner/Hagan/McCaskill) who depended on these voters for their victories.
Then again, we could just listen to Rush and harken back to the 1980s when Ronald Reagan supposedly curbed spending.
I'm sure some people are stimulated by good birth-control policy. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Bah, more of the same blend of apocalyptic alarmism and wishful thinking from the ideological left. The notion that the average pleb has abandoned conservatism for liberalism is ridiculous. Most of the moderate plebs that voted for Obama couldn't name his running mate, let alone his cabinet appointees. Most people vote with their wallets and/or vote with the herd. Right or wrong GW Bush was everyone's whipping boy on everything from Iraq, global warming to the credit/mortgage crisis. McCain did incredibly well in the election considering the economic conditions and how badly Bush's name tainted the GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The Republican party now finds itself in the same exact position the Democratic party occupied during the first Bush administration. As with the Democrats these Republicans won't learn their lessons and won't change their ways. All they need to do is bide their time, fight the majority and wait. This massive recession leaves very little room for error and the population is not nearly as patient, hard working or 'hardy' as it was back when the Depression hit. Mark my words, over the next 4 years Obama and the Democrats will run wild with their insane spending and zany antics only to find themselves cast into the wilderness and taking up residence in the same log cabin of shame & irrelevance the Republicans currently occupy. Wash, rinse repeat.
You're honestly telling me you're looking for a sense of ethnical & moral closure... from politicians?!? :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Give the Democrats time, they've done a bang up job of pissing away $$$ for the last two years. I'll wager they're going to match or beat the Republican fiscal transgressions that took place during the Bush administration... and do it in less time!
Grammar note: If it's the "Democrat party" then it should also be the "Republic party." Find some consistency, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
I HAZ GRAMMARZ!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Democrat party members are Democrats. Republican party members are Republicans. Democratic party members would be Democratics. It's simple- see?:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If they had just let him buy the St. Louis Rams, or be on Monday Night Football, or keep that gig on ESPN, he'd have been too busy to be a pain in the side. That's all the boy ever wanted: some grid-iron love.
But, spurned love has driven him to his second choice: bugging LIB-ruhlz, and making them squirm. Now he, and the rest of right-wing talk radio, have a built-in cause to bring up anytime they need to fill air-time; the "Fairness Doctrine", and how the evil Dem's will try to shut them up.
Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage, O'Rielly... all of them mention something about that within their 3rd hour of talk, everyday.
At moments like this, I have to wonder about you, Xiahou.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Do we need to go over the difference between an adjective and a noun again? For a guy who's such a stickler when he hears something he doesn't like, you show a shocking laxity when it comes to pushing bad info. Here, let me Google that for you:
Definition and proper usage of "democratic." That wasn't so hard, now was it? What do you know, it's a real word and it applies to the Democratic Party.
No matter how much you disdain the Dems, why not do the right thing and use the correct term? Do a favor to grammar and usage, and make yourself seem like less of a purely partisan creature at the same time. Double bonus!
and the point of this grammer lesson is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Ask the people who refuse to use the language correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
The whole lot should be turned out and each one replaced by one of their constituents selected at random from the list of registered voters.
Most of these folks, being regular people, would simply gasp -- responding as they would if it were their own checkbooks -- and lop about half of the federal budget off.
No, but apparently we need to go over proper nouns with you. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Congrats to Michael Steele. First step in the right direction for the G.O.P. in a while.
If you're going to base your argument on proper nouns then you're still wrong. If the Dems choose to call themselves "Democratic," thus correctly mirroring the word's usage when placed as an adjective, who are you to amend them? What a person or group choose to call themselves is their business, surely, and not really the province of their sworn ideological foes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You're wrong on grammar, wrong on usage, wrong on courtesy, and wrong when you frame the argument in a way that you mistakenly think is in your favor. I find it quite amazing that you're sticking to your guns on this one. If you are incapable of admitting a simple grammatical error ...
-edit-
I see Wikipedia has an entire article about your verbal tic.
-edit-
Found another article about your pet malapropism.
There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. [...] “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax.com, which blue-pencils Associated Press dispatches to de-“ic” references to the Party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. (The resulting impression that “Democrat Party” is O.K. with the A.P. is as phony as a North Korean travel brochure.) The respectable conservative journals of opinion sprinkle the phrase around their Web sites but go light on it in their print editions. William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review, the magazine he had founded forty-five years before. “I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective,” Buckley began.
Dear Joe McCarthy used to do that, and received a rebuke from this at-the-time 24-year-old. It has the effect of injecting politics into language, and that should be avoided. Granted there are diffculties, as when one desires to describe a “democratic” politician, and is jolted by possible ambiguity. But English does that to us all the time, and it’s our job to get the correct meaning transmitted without contorting the language.
Rofl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Right on.
Errr, I mean: Commie.
:laugh4:
They can call themselves whatever they want. Republican Party Members call themselves Republicans; Green Party, Greens; Libertarian Party, Libertarians; Communist Party, Communists. Democratic Party, Democrats? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Again, they can call themselves whatever they want. And I'll do the same. :wink:
It's not a grammatical error. Aside from it being a proper noun, nouns are used together that way all the time. Have you ever been to a 'grocery store' or ridden a 'mountain bike'? Honestly, read your own links:Quote:
You're wrong on grammar, wrong on usage, wrong on courtesy, and wrong when you frame the argument in a way that you mistakenly think is in your favor. I find it quite amazing that you're sticking to your guns on this one. If you are incapable of admitting a simple grammatical error ...
Also, from your own links:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
You seem to be the only backroomer upset by this issue, so read into it what you will. Who else would get so upset about someone slightly altering the name of a party other than the party faithful? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by New Yorker
PS: Free to make up and use any silly names you can think of for Republicans, I won't mind. :2thumbsup:
All this fuss over an innocent flub?!? I even went back and changed my original post! I think you got a wee bit carried away over this one... as in carried downstream, over the falls, through the rapids, out to sea and into the belly of one of the there sea serpents that prey on ships near the edge of the world... :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Obama's new definition of "bipartisanship" is "agreeing with us".
Isn't that every governments definition of bipartisanship ?
Obviously, Spino dear, I'm not reacting to your transient slip, but rather to the dogged defenders of bad grammar and usage. It's one thing to make a simple mistake, and quite another to defend it no matter how obviously wrong it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Thus branding yourself as a man who disrespects the English language and has no manners to boot. Congratulations!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I read them. Did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
"Democrat Party is a political epithet used in the United States by some people instead of the name (or more precisely, the proper noun) Democratic Party."
"The use of the term is an attempt to separate the people that make up the party from the principle outlined in their name. It stems from the notion that a collection of Democrats is not necessarily a democratic collection. However, the moniker of 'Democrat' is derived from 'Democratic Party' and not vice-versa so the construction in this fashion is not proper."
"In August 2008, the Republican platform committee voted down a proposal to use the phrase 'Democrat Party' in the 2008 platform, deciding to use the proper 'Democratic Party'. 'We probably should use what the actual name is,' said Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the panel's chairman."
"Democratic Party, however, is a proper noun."
So you're placing your grammatical errors and ill-usage of the English language above the Republican party platform, and above the judgment of William F. Buckley, the founder of the magazine which you worship. From a man who might know a bit more about language and usage than you ever will:
I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective. Dear Joe McCarthy used to do that, and received a rebuke from this at-the-time 24-year-old. It has the effect of injecting politics into language, and that should be avoided.
So let's recap: You're wrong on points of grammar and (more importantly) usage, you're wrong on courtesy (since it is polite to call people and groups by their preferred name, unless there is some overriding reason to do otherwise), and the very links you point to demonstrate that your abuse of the language is a signature of extreme rightwing hacks.
And doubtless all of this will bounce off you like logic off a Communist, and you'll continue to doggedly assert that your neologism is fantastically correct, despite the fact that you have nothing, nothing to back your position up.
Tell you what, take it to PM if you want to continue defending your lost position. Or start a new thread if you really can't let it go.
Typical authoritarian logic. "Oh, am I abusing the language? Well why don't you just abuse it in equal measure, and then we can all be brothers in disrespect and NewSpeak."Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I propose we resolve to call 'em 'crats 'n 'pubs. Yanno, single-syllable monikers like the Jets and Sharks, and we can all enjoy the knife-fight ballets ala West Side Story.
You're never alone,
You're never disconnected!
You're home with your own:
When company's expected,
You're well protected!
:)
Works for me. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Lemur, you seem to be missing the point. I couldn't care less if the partisan Democrat hacks get upset when someone tweaks their name. Distortion of an organization's name is a common humorous device whether you're doing it to a sports team, PETA, or a political party.
The only thing I take issue with is the red herring "grammar" defense. It fails in two ways. First, as a proper noun the rules you think apply don't. Second, the rules you think apply don't apply in practice either. I asked if you read your links, because the Wikipedia article explains that. I even provided an additional link that explains the use of nouns as adjectives. Here, take another look.
It's not grammatically unsound by any means. All you're left with is that it bothers you- that's fine. Lot's of things bother people and if all you have to get in a tizzy over is someone dropping two letters of the name of your party, you're doing ok. :yes:
Once again demonstrating that you do not understand basic manners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You're still utterly wrong. The proper noun in this case is "Democratic Party," so by your own tortured logic, you should be referring to Democrats as "Democratics," not the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party." Once again, fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
If you're going to base your twisting of the English language on declaring that Democrat is a proper noun, then your banging on the noun-as-adjective log is irrelevant anyway. Make up your mind on which excuse you're going to cling to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I see you aren't entirely clear on the proper use of apostrophes, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
As for your various, "Oh, you care about proper usage, you must be a partisan shill," asides, they really are beneath response. Nothing says "I can't defend my own bad English" like trolling.
No, once again, fail. It bothers me and anybody who cares about proper usage, such as William F. Buckley (whose thoughts on this issue you've scrupulously avoided addressing) and the Republican Party (whose position on this issue you've danced around). Frankly, I think your continued insistence on a malapropism is amazing, nothing short of amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
hotlinked picture removedQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Isn't it funny to see Americans having a dispute about proper usage of the English language when as a nation they use a bastardised version of the language .
Sorry, but it's those UK'ers who're the ones who failed to keep up with a developing language -- we just let them continue to call it "English" as our sole contribution to the Special Relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
If they keep falling behind, it'll all be like one massive gaeltacht wherein only the locals can speak to one another....or care to do so.'''
:smartass2:
Well, I see the arguments have degenerated into semantics over word usage now.
It is only right I suppose.
Considering the numbers of degenerents likely to frequent a place like this.
:laugh4::laugh4:
Only in Grammerica. It is part of our founding participles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking