Mr. President - It is the 'Democratic' Party

[michaeledward]

The newspapers and newscasters have taken of late to say "the team have been" where they should have said "the team has been" almost exclusively.

The newspapers and newscasters should be taken out and spanked. Are there no more editors?

You would think, that when their trade is the English language, they would have command of it.

 

[michaeledward]

Okay, if not the "democrat party" how about "that party of democrats?" That should be less insulting...

The second is not insulting at all. It is proper use of the language.

"I am a democrat" is correct.
"I am a member of the Democratic Party" is correct.
"I am a member of the Democrat Party" is not correct.

 

[Ray]

The second is not insulting at all. It is proper use of the language.

"I am a democrat" is correct.
"I am a member of the Democratic Party" is correct.
"I am a member of the Democrat Party" is not correct.

Okay, if "that party of democrats" isn't insulting, howabout "that party of commie, pinko democrats?"

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. I have a lot of respect for people who have different opinions than I do. It's just that I can't see Hillary taking charge of the nation when she can't even keep her hubby under control. (Sorry again. note to self: stop before you say something mean).

 

[CoryKS]

The second is not insulting at all. It is proper use of the language.

"I am a democrat" is correct.
"I am a member of the Democratic Party" is correct.
"I am a member of the Democrat Party" is not correct.

I disagree. The suffix -ic is makes the word an adjective. One may call oneself a Democrat, but that doesn't magically make one democratic (see: Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of) Just as it has been pointed out on other threads that just because one calls oneself a Christian, doesn't necessarily mean they are exhibiting Christ-like behavior.

You may take it as an insult to have it suggested that you and your party are not as democratic as you believe, that doesn't mean others have to describe you as such if they feel the label doesn't fit.

 

[michaeledward]

I disagree. The suffix -ic is makes the word an adjective. One may call oneself a Democrat, but that doesn't magically make one democratic (see: Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of) Just as it has been pointed out on other threads that just because one calls oneself a Christian, doesn't necessarily mean they are exhibiting Christ-like behavior.

You may take it as an insult to have it suggested that you and your party are not as democratic as you believe, that doesn't mean others have to describe you as such if they feel the label doesn't fit.

Democratic Party is the proper noun describing the political affiliation for thirty five percent of the American voters. We are not using 'Democratic' as an adjective for the noun Party. One indication of the correct usage is the capital letter 'D'.

Please review the earlier link to the Mediamatters article.

The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun "Democratic Party" as "One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828." (It defines "Democrat n" as "A Democratic Party member" and "Democratic adj" as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party," but gives no definition for -- indeed, makes no mention of -- "Democrat Party n" or "Democrat adj".) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points.

Also, please note the use in the distributed text of the President's State of the Union speech.

Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate — and I congratulate the Democratic majority. Congress has changed, but our responsibilities have not.

The President had the correct language in front of him. Please choose which argument you wish to make on his behalf ...

a) He can't read.
b) He doesn't know any better.
c) He intended to insult 35% of the registered voters the United States.
​

 

[CoryKS]

The President had the correct language in front of him. Please choose which argument you wish to make on his behalf ...

a) He can't read.​

b) He doesn't know any better.​

c) He intended to insult 35% of the registered voters the United States.​

It's probably C). And like I said above, it's poor service to insult those for whom you work. If I were you, I would choose not to vote for him in the next election.

 

[crushing]

The President had the correct language in front of him. Please choose which argument you wish to make on his behalf ...

a) He can't read.​

b) He doesn't know any better.​

c) He intended to insult 35% of the registered voters the United States.​

Given only those three choices the best answer is b).

Obviously he can read (recall The Pet Goat).

Well, I guess it could be c), but if it were his intent to insult 35% of the registered voters by dropping the -ic, he failed miserably. Do you think 2%, even 1% of those 35% to be insulted were?

Plus, if it weren't for the support of some of that 35%, members of the Republicanistic Party would be finding something wrong like that with President John Kerry's State of the Union address. It would give them a break from President Carter's book.

 

[michaeledward]

It's probably C). And like I said above, it's poor service to insult those for whom you work. If I were you, I would choose not to vote for him in the next election.

So now you are agree that there is a possibility that he intends to offer insult.

Let's see what else you said above ...

Like you said: just because you can't hear the dog whistle, doesn't mean it isn't being blown. Your initial post and the follow-up, like many of your posts, are written in a tone scornful toward the president. And that's fine, those are your views. But to demand - demand - of the president that he address you respectfully is not only illogical but jawdroppingly hypocritical.

He is offering insult, which I point out and rebuke. And you say that my tone is scornful. I did not, by the way, demand that the President address me in any manner. I corrected his poor use of the English language, and pointed it out so that others might see his denigration of those whom he serves.

 

[michaeledward]

Given only those three choices the best answer is b).

Obviously he can read (recall The Pet Goat).

Well, I guess it could be c), but if it were his intent to insult 35% of the registered voters by dropping the -ic, he failed miserably. Do you think 2%, even 1% of those 35% to be insulted were?

Plus, if it weren't for the support of some of that 35%, members of the Republicanistic Party would be finding something wrong like that with President John Kerry's State of the Union address. It would give them a break from President Carter's book.

With the facts in evidence, or other facts you might bring to light, can you offer additional options for our consideration. As I said, I have often been accused of being logical, overly logical, in fact. But I don't wish to leave any stone unturned.

? ? ?

 

[Cruentus]

Dems getting upset over whether their party was called "democratic" or "Democrat" demonstrates in a perfect Zen Koan-like fashion as to why they have problems getting canidates elected.

 

[Carol]

I thought the proper term would be the posessive -

The Democrats' approach - the Democrats' goal

 

[FearlessFreep]

Wow, The Study has reached a new level in political silliness.

and on a more serious note, let's talk 'offense'

You can not offend me; you can never offend me. I can decide to tak offense at what you say, but that is my decision and my control and you cannot take that ability to decide and that ability to determine my reaction away from me. Call me any insult or term of derision you will against me and I wil never say 'you have offended me' because you cannot offend me without my consent. If I take offense at your words, then that is my decision, and often just my failing. I have never seen a movie, heard a song, listened to a speech or beheld a picture that offended me; because they have no power to do so except what I grant them.

Nobody can offend you and nobody can insult you and nobody can deride you unless you allow them to. Decide that in your own person you will not take offense, and life will be a much more enjoyable place to be

 

[michaeledward]

Wow, The Study has reached a new level in political silliness.

and on a more serious note, let's talk 'offense'

You can not offend me; you can never offend me. I can decide to tak offense at what you say, but that is my decision and my control and you cannot take that ability to decide and that ability to determine my reaction away from me. Call me any insult or term of derision you will against me and I wil never say 'you have offended me' because you cannot offend me without my consent. If I take offense at your words, then that is my decision, and often just my failing. I have never seen a movie, heard a song, listened to a speech or beheld a picture that offended me; because they have no power to do so except what I grant them.

Nobody can offend you and nobody can insult you and nobody can deride you unless you allow them to. Decide that in your own person you will not take offense, and life will be a much more enjoyable place to be

Mr. O'Connor, you are correct. I can choose to be offended or not by Mr. Bush's actions. And I have interpreted his actions as offensive. That is my intepretation of his actions.

How do you explain his actions?

Does he not comprehend the English language?
Is he unable to read the prepared text infront of him?
Is he intending to demean 35% of the electorate?
Is he sending dog-whistle code words to the 28% of Americans that still support his policies?

You can find a transcript of the prepared text at any of numerous websites. You can also find the video of his actual spoken words. You can find dictionary definitions of the terms in the text and the terms he used. And with an 8th grade level of English composition you can discern the grammatical errors executed.

Why did he do this?

 

[michaeledward]

I thought the proper term would be the posessive -

The Democrats' approach - the Democrats' goal

That term would be proper when describing the political ambitions of the Democratic Party. For instance; "The Democrats' goal is to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over the next eighteen months."

But the name of the affliation is the Democratic Party. It is a proper name.

We call the navy's aerobatic demonstration team "The Blue Angels". That, too, is a proper name. Why might I intentionally misname that performance team to something else; such as "The Blue Fairies"? I could be doing that because I don't believe in 'Angels', but I do believe in 'Fairies'. Or I could be doing it because the term 'Fairie' has different connotations. Or I could be doing it because I am an idiot. Or I could be doing it to slander the swabbies.

No matter the motivation, calling something by a name other than its proper name is incorrect. If we do it once, it is a mistake, we can correct it. If we do it repeatedly, and we assume a minimum level of intelligence, I believe it is safe to look for other motivations.

I recall an episode of Star Trek, in the second season, when Doctor Pulaski was interacting with the android - the episode was 'The Child'.

Dr. Pulaski : Da-ta, look at this.
Android : DA-ta.
Dr. Pulaski : What?
Android : My name. It is pronounced DA-ta.
Dr. Pulaski : Oh?
Android : You called me Da-ta.
Dr. Pulaski : What's the difference?
Android : One is my name. The other is not.
​

 

[Dave Leverich]

All I can say is 'wow'.

I'd say, you've got to be flippin' kidding me, but I might say it wrong ;p.

 

[Kacey]

While I have often seen such errors - my father is a college English professor, and I have, in the past, helped him grade his students' work - I have better things to do with my time than be offended by George W. Bush and his mispronunciations of the English language. If he chooses to look like an uneducated, illiterate boor, that is his choice; however, I see no reason why I, or any other person on the planet, Democrat or not, citizen or not, should waste the time and effort it takes to be offended by him.

Rather, I will spend time on things that affect me more directly, such as finding ways to support one of my middle school students, a quiet, polite, A/B student who is my student aide but mostly does her homework in my room so she can get help on it, who told me today, in the same matter-of-fact fashion she uses to ask for help with her homework, that she won't be spending time with her father for her birthday, as her father is likely to be returned to jail shortly, for the second time this school year (the first time was for stealing his employer's truck; the upcoming incarceration will be, in her opinion, for parole violation; he has not managed to get a job, and has returned to using illegal drugs, along with his girlfriend), her cousins are about to be evicted by their joint grandmother, as their mother is also abusing illegal drugs, and grandmother is moving the children in with her and kicking the mother out, along with a court action to obtain legal custody of the children based on their mother's drug abuse and neglect, and, oh yes, her other grandmother is taking her skiing this weekend for her birthday. She considers her life normal; after all, many of her friends have similar problems. She turned 14 yesterday.

I am involved in politics at a local level, I vote for both issues and offices, and I do the best I can to make my corner of the world a better place. As I said, I have better things to do with my time than concern myself with GW Bush's inability, or unwillingness, to pronounce his native tongue correctly.

 

[Cryozombie]

And there is always the possiblity that he is fumbling over his words because hes a lousy public speaker... and before the REPUBLICANS on board think I am insulting them, I mean public as in "the public" and not "Public" as in insulting version of "RePUBLICan"

Look how <sarcasm>*FUN*</sarcasm> it is to have to be PC.
​

 

[Dave Leverich]

Lol, no worries Cryo, I'm pissed at him for calling it Repubs.. er wait, I'm not. Heh.

 

[Carol]

While I have often seen such errors - my father is a college English professor, and I have, in the past, helped him grade his students' work - I have better things to do with my time than be offended by George W. Bush and his mispronunciations of the English language. If he chooses to look like an uneducated, illiterate boor, that is his choice; however, I see no reason why I, or any other person on the planet, Democrat or not, citizen or not, should waste the time and effort it takes to be offended by him.

Rather, I will spend time on things that affect me more directly, such as finding ways to support one of my middle school students, a quiet, polite, A/B student who is my student aide but mostly does her homework in my room so she can get help on it, who told me today, in the same matter-of-fact fashion she uses to ask for help with her homework, that she won't be spending time with her father for her birthday, as her father is likely to be returned to jail shortly, for the second time this school year (the first time was for stealing his employer's truck; the upcoming incarceration will be, in her opinion, for parole violation; he has not managed to get a job, and has returned to using illegal drugs, along with his girlfriend), her cousins are about to be evicted by their joint grandmother, as their mother is also abusing illegal drugs, and grandmother is moving the children in with her and kicking the mother out, along with a court action to obtain legal custody of the children based on their mother's drug abuse and neglect, and, oh yes, her other grandmother is taking her skiing this weekend for her birthday. She considers her life normal; after all, many of her friends have similar problems. She turned 14 yesterday.

I am involved in politics at a local level, I vote for both issues and offices, and I do the best I can to make my corner of the world a better place. As I said, I have better things to do with my time than concern myself with GW Bush's inability, or unwillingness, to pronounce his native tongue correctly.

Kacey if there were more people like you, this world would be a better place

 

[FearlessFreep]

I recall an episode of Star Trek, in the second season, when Doctor Pulaski was interacting with the android - the episode was 'The Child'.

and Data was not offended by Dr.Pulaski usng the wrong pronunciation of his name. He corrected her and moved on.

I suppose you could just shake your head, consider him an idiot and move on just mumbling '2 more years....', but by choosing to take offense at, to consider offensive, his actions is to give him control of your emotions and mental state, and he doesn't even know you exist or care what you think. You have chosen to allow him to injure you and to wallow in that inujry, and he is none the worse for it.

I *refuse* to allow people who do not know of my existance and do not care for my personal well being any control of my mental well-being or emotional state; it's a waste of time and a waste of energy and hurts me and never touches them. Life is too precious and too short and too full of opportunity to allow my mental sense of health and self-image to be controlled in such a capricious way as to let myself be offended by people to whom I am just an anonymous stranger