A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Or if we just ignore it then no one has a problem. Correct?

Sure. Just know, though, that this proud brand of stupidity in the face of contrary facts - coupled with an invitation to ignore you for your declared stupidity - might just earn you what you're asking for.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
We have gone through this before. You are clearly incorrect, but refuse to admit it. (As I proved last time with cites to actual source material.)

This was re Spanky's statement:

"We have already been through this. There is nothing "Democratic" about the "Democrat party". The term Democrat is not used to modify the term party, it is another noun. It is the name of the party, it does not describe what kind of party it is."

I don't read this board regularly, nor do I care to scroll to find y'all's prior discourse, but I find it hard to argue with Spanky's statement. The Democrats are as "democratic" as the Republicans are "republican." Our electoral method is a mix of both (among other things) and neither word any longer stands for that method of voting. Rather, the terms have become code words for whatever the currently bi-polar delination is over a few issues. But those terms (and the parties appropriating their names) are so fluid, and the various counter-examples so prevalent (e.g. my oft-stated bon mot that Bush is a 1964 Southern Democrat) that I wonder why anyone, y'all included care anymore. see e.g. every communist group that called themselves the "peoples something something front."

Further, why would any right-thinking person choose to align or affiliate with either of these abominations, let alone become worked up about whether their chosen nom-de-plume accurately reflects their values (i.e., any group that is defensive about this has either inaccurately or dishonestly named themselves)? Don't you only sully yourself by association? And, even if you don't actively support or suborn one of these hobgoblins, isn't even subtly or secretly supporting one of them the equivalent of saying "I won't go to a cock fight, let alone bet on it, but I hope the Red with the nice Waddle wins"?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
This was re Spanky's statement:

"We have already been through this. There is nothing "Democratic" about the "Democrat party". The term Democrat is not used to modify the term party, it is another noun. It is the name of the party, it does not describe what kind of party it is."

I don't read this board regularly, nor do I care to scroll to find y'all's prior discourse, but I find it hard to argue with Spanky's statement. The Democrats are as "democratic" as the Republicans are "republican." Our electoral method is a mix of both (among other things) and neither word any longer stands for that method of voting. Rather, the terms have become code words for whatever the currently bi-polar delination is over a few issues. But those terms (and the parties appropriating their names) are so fluid, and the various counter-examples so prevalent (e.g. my oft-stated bon mot that Bush is a 1964 Southern Democrat) that I wonder why anyone, y'all included care anymore. see e.g. every communist group that called themselves the "peoples something something front."

Further, why would any right-thinking person choose to align or affiliate with either of these abominations, let alone become worked up about whether their chosen nom-de-plume accurately reflects their values (i.e., any group that is defensive about this has either inaccurately or dishonestly named themselves)? Don't you only sully yourself by association? And, even if you don't actively support or suborn one of these hobgoblins, isn't even subtly or secretly supporting one of them the equivalent of saying "I won't go to a cock fight, let alone bet on it, but I hope the Red with the nice Waddle wins"?

Less -

If you'll be kind enough to indulge me, I'd like to scan some blogs and maybe run a few Wikipedia searches. I will then offer selective text, an ersatz "expert report" of sorts, explaining that, although practically correct, in a technical or academic sense (or what passes for "academic" in the world of online punditry and Wiki definition creation) you are wrong.

Best,
Sebastian

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
You brought it up. You are the one focusing on it. I will and can call the Democrat party whatever I want to call it. No matter how much you complain, I will always refer to it as the Democrat party. You can either suck it up or complain about it. The problem is purely yours.

Sure you can. Heck, it's an old Republican slur (which you surely know), and people from Alf Landon to Bob Dole or George W. Bush have cheerfully used it when making partisan attacks.

Here's the thing, though. It's impolite to *always* use it. Occasionally, you have to call a group by the name they select or you brand yourself as a rude person who has chosen to deliberately insult someone. Even if your prefered name is based upon grammar or factual correctness.

Arab governments that don't recognize Israel call it "the Zionist entity." This is a factually correct term (the state's founding ideology was and remains Zionism). However, it is a huge insult to use that term to refer to Israel, and the fact that it remained in the charter of the PLO after the Oslo Accords was a real problem for a substantial chunk of the Israeli public -- even before the Palestinians resumed their violence. Flying to Jerusalem and calling Israel "Israel" was one of the bravest things that Anwar Sadat did. (See also Republic of China/Red China versus People's Republic of China/Taiwan -- Nixon's use of the PRC name in a speech was a clear signal to Mao and Chou.)

Let's think of an example in Spankyland where you might want to think about the impact of your version of the party name. In a setting where you are trying to scrape together enough votes in the House to pass a free trade bill, would you want to call possible "yes" votes a name which -- regardless of its gramatical correctness -- insults them?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by LessinSF
This was re Spanky's statement:

"We have already been through this. There is nothing "Democratic" about the "Democrat party". The term Democrat is not used to modify the term party, it is another noun. It is the name of the party, it does not describe what kind of party it is."

I don't read this board regularly, nor do I care to scroll to find y'all's prior discourse, but I find it hard to argue with Spanky's statement. The Democrats are as "democratic" as the Republicans are "republican." . . .

I agree it doesn't much matter, but:

If you look at the last two sentences of Spanky's statement which you quote, I believe you will see that he states that the political party is in fact named the "Democrat Party." That is the argument we had before, where he was proven incorrect, and was the point I addressed.

S_A_M

P.S. I do understand that you and I are talking about completely different issues, and that I didn't really respond to the substance of your post.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Sure you can. Heck, it's an old Republican slur (which you surely know), and people from Alf Landon to Bob Dole or George W. Bush have cheerfully used it when making partisan attacks.

Here's the thing, though. It's impolite to *always* use it. Occasionally, you have to call a group by the name they select or you brand yourself as a rude person who has chosen to deliberately insult someone. Even if your prefered name is based upon grammar or factual correctness.

Arab governments that don't recognize Israel call it "the Zionist entity." This is a factually correct term (the state's founding ideology was and remains Zionism). However, it is a huge insult to use that term to refer to Israel, and the fact that it remained in the charter of the PLO after the Oslo Accords was a real problem for a substantial chunk of the Israeli public -- even before the Palestinians resumed their violence. Flying to Jerusalem and calling Israel "Israel" was one of the bravest things that Anwar Sadat did. (See also Republic of China/Red China versus People's Republic of China/Taiwan -- Nixon's use of the PRC name in a speech was a clear signal to Mao and Chou.)

Let's think of an example in Spankyland where you might want to think about the impact of your version of the party name. In a setting where you are trying to scrape together enough votes in the House to pass a free trade bill, would you want to call possible "yes" votes a name which -- regardless of its gramatical correctness -- insults them?

The term "Democrat" alone is pejorative in a lot of circles. I live ina fairly GOP area. You hear folks use it the same way people throw "liberal" around as an insult. "What are you? A fuckin Democrat?"

But thanks. Now I'm going to use "Democrat Party" to differentiate from the Bush Supporters I'm presently insulting with the term "Democrats."

Spend like Democrat, and you're a Democrat, no matter how many "W" stickers you have on your Sequoia.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I agree it doesn't much matter, but:

If you look at the last two sentences of Spanky's statement which you quote, I believe you will see that he states that the political party is in fact named the "Democrat Party." That is the argument we had before, where he was proven incorrect, and was the point I addressed.

S_A_M

P.S. I do understand that you and I are talking about completely different issues, and that I didn't really respond to the substance of your post.

Good for you. Where would you like the Prize Committee to Fedex your case of Turtle Wax?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The term "Democrat" alone is pejorative in a lot of circles. I live ina fairly GOP area. You hear folks use it the same way people throw "liberal" around as an insult. "What are you? A fuckin Democrat?"

But thanks. Now I'm going to use "Democrat Party" to differentiate from the Bush Supporters I'm presently insulting with the term "Democrats."

Spend like Democrat, and you're a Democrat, no matter how many "W" stickers you have on your Sequoia.

I think calling the RINOs (like Bush) the Democrat Party is a fine insult, and one they undoubtedly will understand.

All this having been said, Spanky is free to call whoever he wants whatever he wants. He just should realize it all goes to how he is perceived. It may also be wise to avoid using the perjorative in certain crowds.

This is also true, of course, of Michael Richards.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think calling the RINOs (like Bush) the Democrat Party is a fine insult, and one they undoubtedly will understand.

All this having been said, Spanky is free to call whoever he wants whatever he wants. He just should realize it all goes to how he is perceived. It may also be wise to avoid using the perjorative in certain crowds.

This is also true, of course, of Michael Richards.

Yeh, but even though they have no basis to use it, RINO's too much a favorite of the social conservatives, used to deride Libertarian Republicans.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, but even though they have no basis to use it, RINO's too much a favorite of the social conservatives, used to deride Libertarian Republicans.

So how about calling them CINOs? (conservatives in name only - I couldn't come up with a "w").

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So how about calling them CINOs? (conservatives in name only - I couldn't come up with a "w").

Ever seen a CINO charge a Range Rover on "Wild Kingdom"?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
.

All this having been said, Spanky is free to call whoever he wants whatever he wants. He just should realize it all goes to how he is perceived. It may also be wise to avoid using the perjorative in certain crowds.

You don't think I know "how it is perceived". Since the day I started posting to this board I have always called it the "Democrat party". I would be surprised if you could find an exception on any post that I have ever made. Probably a thousand references to the Democrat party and not one to the "Democratic party".

The first time someone noticed it, people seemed to think this was something I came up with on my own. That it was just a whim of mine and criticized me thinking if I just understood the error of my ways I would correct it.

Now some of the people on this board have realized that there are other people that do the same, and are starting to get the idea that this is something that maybe I did not come up with on my own.

But even so, I am being lectured on "how it is perceived" and what people’s reactions will be. And being lectured to so I am aware of what I am doing. The most precious criticisms is when people send me official postings of the Democrat party to show that they call themselves the Democratic party, like this is something I don't know (and if it was something I knew I would change my ways).

Clearly these critics think that they have put a great deal of thought into this and clearly they think I have not. They understand the ramifications of what I am doing, and I don't, so they need to warn me of what might happen.

Did it ever occur to any of you that I know exactly how it is perceived and what sort of reaction it gets? Did it ever occur to any of you that a lot of thought and research has been put into just that question? Did it ever occur to you that the reactions that have occured on this board just reinforce that what is being done here is very effective?

This is the politics board, not the policy board. People on this board talk like they know something about politics, yet they have as about as much political acumen as a frog.

What is amazing is that the people that are the most arrogant, condescending and the quickest to give advice on this board have the least political savvy. There is a whole subtext to political discourse and actions that most of the people on this board are completely deaf to.

I would suggest that you find out what I am doing and why I am doing it before giving me any further advice.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, but even though they have no basis to use it, RINO's too much a favorite of the social conservatives, used to deride Libertarian Republicans.

The social conservatives have claimed the use of the word RINO and it has proved to be a very effective tool in what they are trying to achieve. We got outmaneuvered on that one and it has been a very expensive loss.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
The social conservatives have claimed the use of the word RINO and it has proved to be a very effective tool in what they are trying to achieve. We got outmaneuvered on that one and it has been a very expensive loss.

2 questions:
1) By "we" do you mean the libertarian republicans?
2) For whom has the loss been most expensive? Do the elections of 2006 demonstrate that the strategy dooms the current non-RINO Republicans to persistent minority status? Or do the 2004 elections show that they can hold a majority, absent aberational elections resulting from singular/unique policy choices?