Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
nutria
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 862
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby nutria » Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:18 am

Here is a post from the Rhode Island Homeless Bill thread:

Cornbread wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:All in all the bill looks like a nice warm fuzzy law to make people feel better how the homeless are treated,

Excellent observation--and accurate IMO.
Just how would someone prove they didn't get a job because they were homeless? Because they didn't get a call back because they didn't have a phone or they didn't get a reply letter because they didn't have an address to mail it to?

And exactly what kinds of services are not available to someone because they are homeless?


Hey, not bad. Cordial, respectful, asking difficult but important questions related tot he topic at hand.

Cornbread wrote:One would think there'd be more important things to address, but I guess not to the New Democrat Party.


....And here come the childish taunts.

OK, can you explain to me how using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" as an adjective is supposed to be a slight? Clearly, both of you feel this way (as do many nationally-prominent Republicans), but I'll admit that it makes absolutely no sense to me. So, let's hear it -- how is "Democrat" an insult, where "Democratic" is not?

Slight aside: to preemptively thwart the first attempted threadjack -- I'm not a member of any Democratic group. I'm simply bemused at such a weak attempt at an insult. For comparison, "Dims" and "Demoncraps" are childish, to be sure, but at least make some sense, in context.

Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Mean Scenester » Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:54 am

I think we should start referring to these jackasses as the Republica Party. Should make them sufficiently uncomfortable, what it being a furrin' word and all.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:23 am

Originally, "democratic" was a modifier of "republican". As I'm sure you know, the first Republicans were Democratic-Republicans. They were opposed to the Federalists who proposed a national bank. Federalists allied themselves with Britain against France.

Democratic-Republicans favored states' rights and yeoman farmers and planters (anyone owning 20 or more slaves) over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and investors. For Democratic-Republicans, republicanism meant being anti-monarchical. Eventually, the Democratic-Republican party split, becoming the pro-slavery Democratic Party and the abolitionist National Republican Party.

Calling the modern Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" is just a way of reminding Democrats of their pro-slavery tendencies - something they are (with good reason) very sensitive about.

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby fisticuffs » Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:27 am

Calling the modern Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" is just a way of reminding Democrats of their pro-slavery tendencies - something they are (with good reason) very sensitive about.


How does using terrible English remind Democrats of that? Did you just claim today's democrats are pro-slavery? Do you honestly believe that? You seemed to get history correct right up until it didn't suit your interests then you skipped ahead 60 years.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby wack wack » Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:33 am

Ahhh... so it's the Republican way of saying, "forget our current support for sexism, racism and homophobia, your team supported slavery centuries ago!!!"

Brilliant. I heard a much simpler explanation: the word to the reptilian Republican mind is "Democ-RAT." You know, because Democrats are rats.

Meanwhile, the shortened version of "conservative," with it's "anti-" and "criminal" implications, will forever be a more apropros tag for Republicans than anything they'll ever hang on Democrats.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3612
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby jman111 » Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:39 am

So, history aside, Larry's argument just doesn't make any sense.

There once was a "Democratic-Republican" party.
Eventually, the Democratic-Republican party split, becoming the pro-slavery "Democratic" Party and the abolitionist "National Republican" Party.

Therefore, calling the modern Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" is just a way of reminding Democrats of their pro-slavery tendencies???

No mention of dropping the "-ic" until the last sentence, and then it has some special connotation?

I can't believe I actually took the time to respond....

nutria
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 862
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby nutria » Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:57 am

So, Meade, I appreciate what seems like an honest answer, but, as stated above, it doesn't really answer the question in any logical way.

My thoughts, after reading the above:
1. What seems like the most likely in this thread is wack wack's guess "Democ-RAT."
2. I'd really like to hear from Cornbread, who is the most egregious abuser of the purported pejorative.
3. Meade's history lesson above is a favorite of Republicans, and I can understand why. But some food for thought: Take John Q. Voter off the street. Which major party is he more likely to associate with Affirmative Action, The Civil Rights Movement, etc.? Also, imagine an alternate present where slave labor is still legal in the US. Which of today's major parties would be the larger supporter of so anti-union and pro-business a concept as slave labor?

O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3214
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby O.J. » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:01 pm


Madcity Expat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 2:02 pm
Location: mill-e-wah-que..."the good land"
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Madcity Expat » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:03 pm

fisticuffs wrote:You seemed to get history correct right up until it didn't suit your interests then you skipped ahead 60 years.

Indeed, I said something similar to Cornbread in a different thread (sorry for the hijack Huckelby). In that thread too, Cornbread combined some reasonable historical commentary with self-serving political mumbo-jumbo - implying clumsily that the former supported the latter.

Regarding Meade, this part is well stated and knowledgeable, although some indication of sources would be helpful:
Meade wrote:Originally, "democratic" was a modifier of "republican". As I'm sure you know, the first Republicans were Democratic-Republicans. They were opposed to the Federalists who proposed a national bank. Federalists allied themselves with Britain against France.

Democratic-Republicans favored states' rights and yeoman farmers and planters (anyone owning 20 or more slaves) over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and investors. For Democratic-Republicans, republicanism meant being anti-monarchical.

This distorts the picture by ignoring two major party realignments, in the 1820s and again in the late 1850s:
Meade wrote:Eventually, the Democratic-Republican party split, becoming the pro-slavery Democratic Party and the abolitionist National Republican Party.

The effect of ignoring these political realignments is to imply a linearity between the party system of and today mid-19thc. Not only does this linearity not exist - but Meade goes on to extend this imagined linearity ad absurdum by suggesting its continuation to the present day - ignoring a number of additional party realignments, large and small (1890/1900 - 1930s - 1960s - 1980, etc) since the Civil War.

Which brings us to...
Meade wrote:Calling the modern Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" is just a way of reminding Democrats of their pro-slavery tendencies - something they are (with good reason) very sensitive about.

And, of course, this is nonsense on the face of it. As I said to Cornbread in the other thread - the adequate quality of the first two paragraphs leads me to the conclusion that Meade is being deliberately obtuse. Either Meade knows better and doesn't care b/c he is just being obnoxious, and so shouldn't be taken seriously. Or Meade doesn't know better, has no real grasp of US history, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9647
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:07 pm

Wait... how can any true-blue, red-blooded American be anything but pro-slavery? Our Founding Fathers all kept slaves and I think it's high time we took back this country and returned to the values they enshrined for us. It's in The Constitution people!

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3612
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby jman111 » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:14 pm

From wiki link:
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh uses the term almost exclusively when referring to Democrats.

That explains a lot.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3612
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby jman111 » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:18 pm

Also from wiki
Delegates to the Democratic National Committee once proposed using "Publican Party" instead of "Republican Party". The committee failed to accept the proposal "explaining that Republican is the name by which the our opponents' product is known and mistrusted."

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:39 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote: It's in The Constitution people!

But the 13th Amendment is also in the constitution. Who passed the 13th Amendment? Not the Democrat Party.

And Article 1, Section 2 Clause 3 of the constitution time-limited the importation of slaves. As soon as the date arrived, January 1, 1808 - as per the constitution - Congress passed a law outlawing the slave trade.

Of course, it was members of the Democrat Party, in 1850, who moved, with all deliberate speed, to pass the Fugitive Slave Law, requiring non slave states to capture, jail, and return escaped slaves to their slave state owners. Thanks to Wisconsin's newly formed political party, the GOP, in 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional - to the dismay of many in the Wisconsin Democrat Party.

Ducatista
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4505
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: 53703

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Ducatista » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:42 pm

It's just a lame playground taunt, intended to irritate.

It does serve as a handy tell: Did the poster just say "Democrat party"? If yes, his post doesn't warrant further time or attention. Move along, nothing to see here.

Zoti Bemba
Forum Addict
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Zoti Bemba » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:42 pm

Also from the Wikipedia link, with emphasis added:

Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) said:

I’d like to begin by saying to my colleague from Texas that there isn’t a single member on this side of the aisle that belongs to the “Democrat Party.” We belong to the Democratic Party. So the party you were referring to doesn’t even exist. And I would just appreciate the courtesy when you’re referring to our party, if you’re referring to the Democratic Party, to refer to it as such.


This solves it for me: the "Democrat Party" is the non-existent straw man that conservatives who fancy themselves brilliant talkers and wits can endlessly beat up, like one of those bottom-weighted rolly-polly pop-up toys. Honest discussion of policy or governance is beyond such people -- that would mean giving up the cheap shot, the rhetorical score or the swift diversion. And that's all these guys have. Fleeting entertainment value. Though often not even that, unless you are fond of poo and potty jokes. And what is it with the obsession with teats?


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests