36 Responses to “Reader Mail”

1. angryclown Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 10:08 am

   Mitch lied: “gales of nattering one draws when one uses “Democrat” as an adjective. It’s perfectly normal usage, of course.”

   Feel free to say “tic” and “Democrat [sic] Party” all you like. Angryclown is partial to “wingnut” and would hate to give it up. But the assertion that it is “perfectly normal usage” is, as you know, a lie. “Democrat” and “democrat,” are nouns, in standard English at least. Check your dictionary. You know, up there on the shelf between “Mein Kampf” and “The Turner Diaries.” Blow the dust off first.

2. Lassie Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 10:21 am

   “Tic” isn’t such a bad name – it conjures up memories of one of my favorite super heroes.

   Obama nickname ideas:
   The Rak
   Obamalamadingdong
   Babyface
   The Changling

   Forget it. I’m too snarky today.

3. angryclown Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 10:25 am

   I’m pretty sure I know the nickname most of you wingnuts use for Obama.

4. Master of None Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 10:32 am

   “I only print names if the writer is a total jerk.”

   Oh crap, I sent you a few emails yesterday.

5. Mitch Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 10:36 am

   “Turner Diaries?”

   You’re just phoning it in now, Clown.

   I’m pretty sure I know the nickname most of you wingnuts use

   I’m at a loss to think of a single instance of a credible significant conservative who’s ever used it, in public or private, though.

   Unlike, say, virtually every real liberal’s references to Michelle Malkin or Condi Rice…

6. Master of None Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 10:39 am

   Obama nickname ideas:

   I’m drawing a blank.

   Now that Edwards doesn’t need his silky pony nickname,

   how about “The Mocha Pony”? Or you could use the nickname that the Clinton’s have pinned on him “The Black Candidate”

7. Yossarian Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 11:01 am

   I’m pretty sure I know the nickname most of you wingnuts use for Obama.

   Wow. I had to actually stop and pause and think about what you were implying before it came to me.

   That it’s the first thing you thought of says a lot about you though, AC.

   Carry on.

8. Terry Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am

   I’m pretty sure I know the nickname most of you wingnuts use for Obama.
   Limosuine liberal?

9. angryclown Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am

   It mystifies Angryclown why anyone gets bent out of shape when Republicans misuse “Democrat” – it makes you sound like ignorant rubes. Kinda like “nukeular.”

   You graduated with an English degree, so Angryclown is certain you know better. Lying about something that’s perfectly obvious to any intelligent person doesn’t enhance the credibility of your blog. And while it may please the slavering wingnuts who post comments on SitD, it seems to me that open agression – in contrast to this particular form of passive aggression – would suit them even better.

   Your blog, of course. Just sayin’.

10. Yossarian Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am

    “Slavering Wingnuts” would be a great name for a rock band.

11. Bill C Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am

    If we’re supposed to say “the DemocratIC party”, since I guess we should use the adjective to describe the object instead of the noun to identify the object, why doesn’t anyone say “the RepublicanIC party”?

    A party is full of Democrats, it’s the Democrat party. A party is full of Republicans, it’s the Republican party.

    It’s still a bunch of bleating by rubes and jackals wanting to push a better PR image of themselves.

    Personally, I’m happy just dropping the entire word Democrat/Democratic and calling them “the Socialist Asshole party”. Now of course, that doesn’t cover EVERYONE who aligns that way. Some of them don’t consider themselves to be socialists.

12. angryclown Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am

    That it would, Yoss.

13. peevish Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    As AC rightly points out, Democrat is NOT normally used as an adjective, and I suspect you know it full well. AC also called you a liar Mitch, I think you need to ban him. Well, or not, because we all lie sometimes, you included I think (but I’d best not say it), but you have a double-standard for what you chose to get offended by, despite your protestation to the contraty that being called a liar was “a line no one can cross”. But you darned well best not ban AC, because he’s easily far and away the best stuff written here.

    However, to the point at hand, unlike Democrat, ‘Tic’ is truly an insult, (not surprising since you neo-nutzies try so hard to convey contempt for your political opposition) and it is intended to be a ‘clever’ use of part of the term DemocratIC used to suggest the idea that Democrats are either blood-sucking parasites, or a muscular twitch, or maybe both – just as a subtle insult, which is why I’ve taken to calling you all licans, because you like licking boots so much.

    Just for clarification AC, I don’t get bent out of shape, I merely, as you do, point out that it’s a misuse an English degreed graduate knows far better than to use. I suspect it’s why he’s now taken to using ‘Tic’ instead. This from the ‘normally civil’ Bergblog. It also makes the convenient point that neo-con(artist)s have their own PC lingo, which I’m sure we’ve known all along, they have their secret terms, secret handshakes and secret catch phrases (death tax, dead tree media, blah blah blah), but it is nice to point out the hypocrisy of it all.

    And Mitch, Rupert Murdoch didn’t tell Fox News to use Democrat instead of Democratic, Roger Ailes did, you might want to fact check that, or, I guess because you didn’t that makes you someone who is long on opinion but short on facts, in Terry or Troy’s opinion.. whomever it was that said that.

14. peevish Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    One question Mitch, why do you “NEED” a nickname for him, other than to slur him? Obama isn’t really a LONG name, I refer to Romney as R O M N E Y, and Mc Cain as M c C A I N. You don’t acutally need a nickname, unless your goal is to find something like oh, Stuart Smalley, used to belittle and condescend to your opposition, you don’t need it at all in fact. Franken is plenty short enough.

    I call GWB , GWB, sometimes I use Bush, occassionally rather than Bush administration, I use BushCo, but administration really IS a long word. No, your need here is just another reminder of the right’s need to slander and slur – What exactly is SO hard about Obama that it needs to be shortened?

15. Bill C Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    However, to the point at hand, unlike Democrat, ‘Tic’ is truly an insult, (not surprising since you neo-nutzies try so hard to convey contempt for your political opposition)

    Pure gold. Nothing more needs to be said.

16. Tim in StP Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    I’m at a loss to think of a single instance of a credible significant conservative who’s ever used it, in public or private, though.

    No “n” words, since Republicans are a classy bunch after all:

    George Allen: “This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is.”

    Evan Meacham: “pickanninies”

    Racial slurs against Michelle Malkin are the work of discredited, brain-damaged comment trolls. It’s a lie to say that virtually all liberals refer to her this way, unless you think “stupid”, “hateful” or “unhinged stalker” are racial epithets. Regrettably there have been a number of left-leaning bloggers who tagged Sec. Rice with epithets like “house negro,” and “brown sugar” but that’s not “every liberal” and your lie still stands.

17. Mitch Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    OK, Chickenlinguists; let’s separate the issues here:

    1) “Democrat” as an adjective. Is it standard? Maybe not, but everyone knows damn well what I mean when I say “the Democrat proposal was shot down in flames, as all mentally-retarded twaddle deserves to be”. There is nothing remotely unclear about it, unless you are a proscriptivist who buys Colace by the 60 gallon drum.

    2) Is there a Scaife-funded initiative to “slur” and “insult” the Democrats by using the noun version of their name for an adjective?

    Really? Don’t you people have anything better to do with your time?

    Rhetorical question.

    George Allen: “This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is.”

    That was quite clearly a verbal flub, one Allen regretted.

    Evan Meacham: “pickanninies”

    Riiiiiight. And Republicans really claim Ev Meacham, right?

    Criminy.

    It’s a lie to say that virtually all liberals

    Ah. But we gotta take on Ev effing Meacham?

    I see how this works.

18. Mitch Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    One question Mitch, why do you “NEED” a nickname for him, other than to slur him?

    That is not the most depressingly obtuse question I’ve ever been asked on this blog.

    But it DOES depress me too much to try to bother thinking of a worse one.

    You might not be able to think of a non-slur reason; that’s no reason to transfer your lack of intellectual agility to the rest of us.

19. Mr. D Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Tim in StP,

    Evan Meacham? My goodness, he’s been gone for nearly 20 years. If you use Evan Meacham, we get to use Lester Maddox.

    As for the “Tic” business; there’s always going to be a certain amount of name calling, especially when you have AC in the house. It’s probably nicer than calling them “slack-jawed morons” or a “55-gallon drum of duck vomit” or some such. The key is to smile when you write it.

20. Mitch Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    It’s a lie to say that virtually all liberals

    No, it’s an angry assault on hypocrisy.

    Republicans threw Ev Meacham under the bus.

    What significant liberal EVER chided their masses of lumpen droogs for their racist assaults on Malkin (and EVERY other liberal minority who dares leave the Tic plantation)?

    Cue the crickets.

21. Chuck Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    “George Allen: ‘This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is.’”

    Does anyone even know what “Macaca” means? I don’t. Does George Allen? Are we going to have a contest to see which group is the most racist? You know, Minnesota’s most well known anti-Christian bigot (Garrison Keillor) has endorsed Al Franken. There. That settles it. Al Franken hits Christians. Hey, this is easy.

22. swiftee Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    I’ve never abandoned the “Democrat” usage because it is perfectly acceptable.

    There is nothing “democratic” about socialism, or ignorance, so I object and refuse to perpetuate the misleading usage of that word. However, moonbats are free to label themselves as anything that makes their tinfoil hats spin (vis pro-infanticide “Catholics”), so if they want to call themselves “Democrats” (or “liberals”, or “progressives”), that’s fine.

    That would make their party the party of Democrats, or the Democrat Party.

23. Kermit Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Our resident lib Mr. Salden has taken to calling us “Cans” in retaliation for “Tic”. Oh where will it all end?

    You are right about Clownie slipping, Mitch. Asking for a new nickname for Obama was a slow lob right over the plate. If he was on his game he would have immediately said “How about ‘President'”.

    No need to thank me, clownie.

24. Chuck Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    I like to call Obama “Dan Quayle”.

25. flash Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Peev asks appropriately:

    “”One question Mitch, why do you “NEED” a nickname for him, other than to slur him?””

    And the EMail that was the catalyst for this screed answers rather well:

    “I think that he’s run out of argument and now has to resort to insults.”

    It is really that simple!

26. Master of None Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    So that explains your use of the term “Mittens” for Romney. Makes sense

27. peevish Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    When did Richard Mellon Scaife or Rupert Murdoch become a Soros surrogate? Your sentence implies they work for him, on his behalf, or did you mean counterpart? – which both Scaife and Murdoch so clearly are – but I’m sure you wouldn’t want to admit to that.

    Again, Mitch, you know better, your degree clearly confers some ability to write and know the difference, but I guess casual mispeak is the watchword of intellectual subterfuge. It’s mildly clever, and without value or seemingly, integrity. Now I make mistakes constantly, for which your set of sychophants assail me, mostly to avoid addressing the issue, but still – I wonder if you’ll be held to the same standard? But I’m more interested in the fact that one of your commenters called you out on your need to engage in base insult, it’s certainly more important than conflating surrogate with counterpart.

28. Kermit Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Peebs, while I’m loathe to comment, you might want to take Clownie’s advise and pick up a dictionary. Surrogate as an adjective can mean “replacement” which puts Mitch’s use on quite sound grammatical ground. It also make you protest look really foolish. Which is typical.

29. wombat-socho Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    I dunno about a nickname, but I have seen a few banners on the SomethingAwful.com forums proclaiming: “Obama ’08: Half Honky, All Donkey!”

30. Mitch Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    your degree clearly confers some ability to write and know the difference,

    Hardly.

    But you (pl) have tripped across one of the great arguments in English linguistics (and most other languages, other than maybe French) – proscriptivism. The whole tedious notion that the language is exactly what it says in Websters and nothing more; that the dictionary negates common usage.

    Honestly, do you think anyone hears “Democrat proposal” and doesn’t know that “Democrat” describes the noun? Show me one person, anywhere, who falls into a hebephrenic stupor because they just heard two nouns back to back.

    but I guess casual mispeak is the watchword of intellectual subterfuge.

    Wow. That is one very sweeping conclusion!

    I’d think that if someone wanted to intellectually undercut society, they’d pick a better (pair of) watchword(s).  But what do I know? 

    To answer the rhetorical question – nothing!  Because the whole “Democrat used as an adjective is a SLUR!” “argument” is both utter madness in a larger sense, and completely irrelevant to me, since – try to absorb this, Peevish – I had no idea about the supposed “conspiracy“, and had used the terms completely interchangeably for years before I heard about the supposed “conspiracy” in any case.  

31. angryclown Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Ah yes, we’ve tripped over a great linguistic debate. And Angryclown doesn’t want to stifle the development of our wonderfully elastic, ever-developing English language by coming down on the “proscriptivist” side (think you mean “PREscriptivist” – but since we’re throwing our dictionaries out the window, who cares? Whee!)

    I’m proclaiming “Wingnut” to be interchangeable with “Republican.”

    “It’s a perfectly normal usage, of course.”

32. Master of None Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    So instead of referring to the Whig Party we should call it the Whiggish Party?

    Or would that be the Whigily Party.

    If AC formed a party would we call it the Idiot Party, or the Idiotic Party. Seems either one is aptly descriptive.

33. Mitch Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    (think you mean “PREscriptivist” – but since we’re throwing our dictionaries out the window, who cares? Whee!)

    Is it true that if you throw a dictionary out the window in NYC, it is going fast enough to sink 300 feet into the concrete when it hits?

    And no, to “Pro”scribe means to exclude.  Proscriptivists want (and think it’s possible) to exclude non-standard language from consideration. 

    Unless I’m mixing the two up, which is possible. 

    I’m proclaiming “Wingnut” to be interchangeable with “Republican.”

    Now, for a second there it seemed like you thought we might have been in any suspense about that.

    I shook it off, but it was an odd thought.

34. flash Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am

    “I had no idea about the supposed “conspiracy“, and had used the terms completely interchangeably for years before I heard about the supposed “conspiracy” in any case. ”

    That is complete and utter BS and a bold faced lie. There is no way you could have any connection at all to the political scene, certainly at the level you do, and not know about the framing and literal attempt to hijack the term. In fricken possible. The President had bought into the slur years ago. Nice try. You’d have to have your fingers in your ear singing lalalala at every key moment. This is and has been mainstream stuff. Sheesh

    Here, read this and get back to me.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101223.html
    excerpt:
    ==But as a matter of simple politeness — something the Bush family is famously good at — it’s rude to call people by a term that makes them bristle, even a seemingly innocuous one. There’s also something grating and coarse-sounding about this abbreviated appellation, like saying “Jew” instead of “Jewish.” It is, conservative wordsmith William F. Buckley wrote in National Review in 2002, “offensive to the ear.”

    And with reason: It’s intended to be. Republican — Publican? — politicians drop the -ic both to annoy the opposition and to diminish the big-D Democrats’ claim to the small-d democratic virtues. ” ‘Democrat Party’ is a slur, or intended to be — a handy way to express contempt,” Hertzberg wrote. “At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.”
    ==

    And if the President’s repeated use of the slur, and your claim would then be that you never listen to the President, I am just curious to see how you can reconcile that.

    Spin batter spin!

35. Terry Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 11:05 am

    But you (pl) have tripped across one of the great arguments in English linguistics (and most other languages, other than maybe French)

    Since you’re speaking of “you (pl)”, this is a great time to pimp my idea about returning to a singular-second-person-pronoun in place of “you”. That’s ‘thou’ (subject) and ‘thee’ (object).
    Using ‘thou’ and ‘thee’ makes insults much more personal & fun. It’s more egalitarian, and it allows us to get rid of clumsy constructions & helper clauses needed to specify whether we are speaking of “you(pl)” or “you(sin)”.
    Language abhors a vacuum. If we don’t start using ‘thou’ and ‘thee’, eventually we’ll have to adopt “you all’ or (shudder) ‘youse’ for the plural form..

36. Mitch Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am

    I’ve actually advocated for this for decades; something analogous to the German Ihr or the Spanish Usted

    However, I’ve always been kinda hands-off on linguistic evolution; things will turn into whatever they’ll turn into. Parts of American English have adapted with “Y’all”, others with “Youse”; if y’all want something more elegant, youse’d better get on the stick…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.