GOP, RNC to rebrand Democrats as 'Socialists'

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: eleison
After reading the past four pages, I have come to the conclusion, this is another liberal circle jerk thread... its just like the "Bush lost" circle jerk.. instead, this is a "GOP suck" circle jerk. People know that the GOP is at its nadir and at this current point, there really isn't much that can be done. Have fun libs dancing and jerking at the down and out GOP. Feel free to kick the GOP in the nuts when its down. Oh, don't forget to gloat.. You have won. Congratulations.

edit.

I'm done with this thread. Don't want to get an STD or anything... feel free to keep on wacking..

The GOP is doing a good enough job at kicking itself in the nuts, they don't need our help :laugh:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: eleison
After reading the past four pages, I have come to the conclusion, this is another liberal circle jerk thread... its just like the "Bush lost" circle jerk.. instead, this is a "GOP suck" circle jerk. People know that the GOP is at its nadir and at this current point, there really isn't much that can be done. Have fun libs dancing and jerking at the down and out GOP. Feel free to kick the GOP in the nuts when its down. Oh, don't forget to gloat.. You have won. Congratulations.

edit.

I'm done with this thread. Don't want to get an STD or anything... feel free to keep on wacking..

Thanks and here's a cookie for your thoughts...


<=== There's the door. You'll be missed.

 

[Budmantom]

They should broaden it to lying socialist tax cheats.

 

[Nebor]

Didn't the democrats already do this themselves?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Neocon has been a term around for a long time. So has socialist. However, as witnessed on these very forums for a long long time, the word neocon was definitely used towards everyone representing a non-liberal idea. I know first hand, being non-dem and non-gop just how often it was used...

Umm.... NO! It's too boring to repost the whole, long, convoluted history of the ever-changing meaning of the term, "neoconservative," but you can read it, here. However, this quote should be enough to confirm the link between it's current usage and the Bushwhackos:

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":

• "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on US unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East".

The problem is that HERE it was not used in that way and that is my entire point. Anyone who had an argument counter to what a hardcore Dem would believe was labeled NEOCON. I should know, I'm for issues on both sides but never more vehemently attacked than at any point where I would dare agree with anything seen as a Republican/NEOCON ideal



.......................................................................................................................................








Well, there you have it. When you were pimping Neocon ideals, you were called a neocon?

How shocking!

You're proving my point. Thanks.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Labels & branding...In six months or a year today's, whiny tropes will have evolved through endless trial and error into an effective set of talking points that the American right wing will have molded into a rhetorical club to beat the liberals with, you know who they constitute in their minds...the population that is not registered Republican. Liberal derangement syndrome FTW.

The Republicans are trying everything they can think of and studiously making note of what works and what doesn't. Interesting idea, I suspect the current status is pages of "Doesn't Work" ideas and a blank sheet for "Works". After all, history shows that they are much better at conjuring up things that don't work.

The RNC leadership is doing everything in its power to lock in the base. And the word ?Socialism? is a magic word among the "base". Count on them to repeat this word every chance they get: From now through the 2010 elections. The Radical right somehow believes that the rest of America is as reactive to that word as they are.

Throwing the word "socialism out there so often, the GOP in fact has managed to improve the image of socialism in the public mind, and has been inspiring people to find out more about it. Which I imagine is not what they wanted. Except they forgot about a whole generation that came up without any Cold War associations in their heads that the GOP was trying to activate. A generation who, upon hearing the word, might want to find out what it means, and that has the means to do so quickly.

It's awfully reflective of the bubble the GOP lives in that the only way they can think of speaking to their own is a tone you usually use on a child. It's unfortunate for them that the part of the population that responds to that is much smaller than they think.

With fascist type agreements with private corporations, like no bid contracts to Halliburton's, wiretapping, hipocritical fiscal policy, politicizing of the courts, The Republican Party should rename itself.

 

[ayabe]

Unless the R's immediately submit a bill to repeal Social Security, Medicare, Pell Grants, all subsidies, and all of our other socialist programs they should really just shut the fuck up.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Not a bad idea, but socialism has always carried a special stigma attached to it ever since the red scares of the cold war. I could see the dems doing a similar smear job to the word 'conservative' as the republicans did to those calling themselves 'liberals' post 911. The democrats would have a better success instead branding themselves as progressives/populists...

i'd say it was earlier than that. eugene v. debs anyone?


odd how the tables have switched almost entirely since roosevelt and wilson (new nationalism vs new freedom)

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Neocon has been a term around for a long time. So has socialist. However, as witnessed on these very forums for a long long time, the word neocon was definitely used towards everyone representing a non-liberal idea. I know first hand, being non-dem and non-gop just how often it was used...

Umm.... NO! It's too boring to repost the whole, long, convoluted history of the ever-changing meaning of the term, "neoconservative," but you can read it, here. However, this quote should be enough to confirm the link between it's current usage and the Bushwhackos:

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":

• "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on US unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East".

The problem is that HERE it was not used in that way and that is my entire point. Anyone who had an argument counter to what a hardcore Dem would believe was labeled NEOCON. I should know, I'm for issues on both sides but never more vehemently attacked than at any point where I would dare agree with anything seen as a Republican/NEOCON ideal



.......................................................................................................................................








Well, there you have it. When you were pimping Neocon ideals, you were called a neocon?

How shocking!

You're proving my point. Thanks.

Apparently you've spent a quarter at the nickle glue stand.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
"Socialism in political thought refers to economic theories of social organization advocating collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation."

Frankly, modern liberals and democrats don't seem all to far from this definition by their actions.

:roll:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
"Socialism in political thought refers to economic theories of social organization advocating collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation."

Frankly, modern liberals and democrats don't seem all to far from this definition by their actions.

Even Bush started to do that crap. Invading and taking over companies. We need real Republicans in this country, not Democrat and Democrat-lite.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21
"Socialism in political thought refers to economic theories of social organization advocating collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation."

Frankly, modern liberals and democrats don't seem all to far from this definition by their actions.

Even Bush started to do that crap. Invading and taking over companies. We need real Republicans in this country, not Democrat and Democrat-lite.

I agree, lets get rid of all banking regulations so more banks can fail!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Neocon has been a term around for a long time. So has socialist. However, as witnessed on these very forums for a long long time, the word neocon was definitely used towards everyone representing a non-liberal idea. I know first hand, being non-dem and non-gop just how often it was used...

Umm.... NO! It's too boring to repost the whole, long, convoluted history of the ever-changing meaning of the term, "neoconservative," but you can read it, here. However, this quote should be enough to confirm the link between it's current usage and the Bushwhackos:

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":

• "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on US unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East".

The problem is that HERE it was not used in that way and that is my entire point. Anyone who had an argument counter to what a hardcore Dem would believe was labeled NEOCON. I should know, I'm for issues on both sides but never more vehemently attacked than at any point where I would dare agree with anything seen as a Republican/NEOCON ideal



.......................................................................................................................................








Well, there you have it. When you were pimping Neocon ideals, you were called a neocon?

How shocking!

You're proving my point. Thanks.

Apparently you've spent a quarter at the nickle glue stand.

You just said that it's perfectly fine to label someone a neocon if they happen to agree with just ONE neocon idea. But here we have liberals complaining about being labeled socialists when they happen to agree with a few socialist ideals.

And he's right, plenty of people were labeled as neocons when they disagreed with the Dems on this board.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Neocon has been a term around for a long time. So has socialist. However, as witnessed on these very forums for a long long time, the word neocon was definitely used towards everyone representing a non-liberal idea. I know first hand, being non-dem and non-gop just how often it was used...

Umm.... NO! It's too boring to repost the whole, long, convoluted history of the ever-changing meaning of the term, "neoconservative," but you can read it, here. However, this quote should be enough to confirm the link between it's current usage and the Bushwhackos:

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":

• "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on US unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East".

The problem is that HERE it was not used in that way and that is my entire point. Anyone who had an argument counter to what a hardcore Dem would believe was labeled NEOCON. I should know, I'm for issues on both sides but never more vehemently attacked than at any point where I would dare agree with anything seen as a Republican/NEOCON ideal



........................................................................................








Well, there you have it. When you were pimping Neocon ideals, you were called a neocon?

How shocking!

You're proving my point. Thanks.

Apparently you've spent a quarter at the nickle glue stand.

You just said that it's perfectly fine to label someone a neocon if they happen to agree with just ONE neocon idea. But here we have liberals complaining about being labeled socialists when they happen to agree with a few socialist ideals.

And he's right, plenty of people were labeled as neocons when they disagreed with the Dems on this board.

Get back to me when the DNC decides to waste time and officially hold a resolution to label the GOP as 'neo-cons'

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21
"Socialism in political thought refers to economic theories of social organization advocating collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation."

Frankly, modern liberals and democrats don't seem all to far from this definition by their actions.

Even Bush started to do that crap. Invading and taking over companies. We need real Republicans in this country, not Democrat and Democrat-lite.

What is your definition of a real republican? Is it similar to what mccain's mother thinks?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Get back to me when the DNC decides to waste time and officially hold a resolution to label the GOP as 'neo-cons'

I don't care about the GOP or DNC, I was talking about what's happened on this board over the past few years. You're a lunatic anyways so no need to respond.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21
"Socialism in political thought refers to economic theories of social organization advocating collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation."

Frankly, modern liberals and democrats don't seem all to far from this definition by their actions.

Even Bush started to do that crap. Invading and taking over companies. We need real Republicans in this country, not Democrat and Democrat-lite.

What is your definition of a real republican? Is it similar to what mccain's mother thinks?

He probably means conservatives.

 

[ZeGermans]

this is good, by 2012 half of america will identify themselves as socialist without even knowing what a real socialist is and then we can have some real progress.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
this is good, by 2012 half of america will identify themselves as socialist without even knowing what a real socialist is and then we can have some real progress.

lulz

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Neocon has been a term around for a long time. So has socialist. However, as witnessed on these very forums for a long long time, the word neocon was definitely used towards everyone representing a non-liberal idea. I know first hand, being non-dem and non-gop just how often it was used...

Umm.... NO! It's too boring to repost the whole, long, convoluted history of the ever-changing meaning of the term, "neoconservative," but you can read it, here. However, this quote should be enough to confirm the link between it's current usage and the Bushwhackos:

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":

• "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on US unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East".

The problem is that HERE it was not used in that way and that is my entire point. Anyone who had an argument counter to what a hardcore Dem would believe was labeled NEOCON. I should know, I'm for issues on both sides but never more vehemently attacked than at any point where I would dare agree with anything seen as a Republican/NEOCON ideal



.......................................................................................................................................








Well, there you have it. When you were pimping Neocon ideals, you were called a neocon?

How shocking!

You're proving my point. Thanks.

Apparently you've spent a quarter at the nickle glue stand.

You just said that it's perfectly fine to label someone a neocon if they happen to agree with just ONE neocon idea.

***no, I did Not***

But here we have liberals complaining about being labeled socialists when they happen to agree with a few socialist ideals.

And he's right, plenty of people were labeled as neocons when they disagreed with the Dems on this board.

He said ALL people were.

That makes him wrong.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid


Apparently you've spent a quarter at the nickle glue stand.

You just said that it's perfectly fine to label someone a neocon if they happen to agree with just ONE neocon idea. But here we have liberals complaining about being labeled socialists when they happen to agree with a few socialist ideals.

And he's right, plenty of people were labeled as neocons when they disagreed with the Dems on this board.

He said ALL people were.

That makes him wrong.

First of all, that doesn't address the first part of my post and your apparent hypocrisy.

Second, you really take people this literally? Obviously he didn't mean that every single Republican that's ever posted on this board was called a neocon. Many conservatives were labeled neocons when they disagreed with the liberals on this board. I'm sure that you and your alt were around then, I'm surprised that you don't remember this.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid


Apparently you've spent a quarter at the nickle glue stand.

You just said that it's perfectly fine to label someone a neocon if they happen to agree with just ONE neocon idea. But here we have liberals complaining about being labeled socialists when they happen to agree with a few socialist ideals.

And he's right, plenty of people were labeled as neocons when they disagreed with the Dems on this board.

He said ALL people were.

That makes him wrong.

First of all, that doesn't address the first part of my post and your apparent hypocrisy.

Second, you really take people this literally? Obviously he didn't mean that every single Republican that's ever posted on this board was called a neocon. Many conservatives were labeled neocons when they disagreed with the liberals on this board. I'm sure that you and your alt were around then, I'm surprised that you don't remember this.

Thanks for telling me what I and another poster meant, JD.

What the hell would we all do without you?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid


Apparently you've spent a quarter at the nickle glue stand.

You just said that it's perfectly fine to label someone a neocon if they happen to agree with just ONE neocon idea. But here we have liberals complaining about being labeled socialists when they happen to agree with a few socialist ideals.

And he's right, plenty of people were labeled as neocons when they disagreed with the Dems on this board.

He said ALL people were.

That makes him wrong.

First of all, that doesn't address the first part of my post and your apparent hypocrisy.

Second, you really take people this literally? Obviously he didn't mean that every single Republican that's ever posted on this board was called a neocon. Many conservatives were labeled neocons when they disagreed with the liberals on this board. I'm sure that you and your alt were around then, I'm surprised that you don't remember this.

Thanks for telling me what I and another poster meant, JD.

What the hell would we all do without you?

I think that Fingolfin would be fine, but apparently you'd go through life taking people way too literally, you're welcome.

Are you going to respond to the first part of my post?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid


Apparently you've spent a quarter at the nickle glue stand.

You just said that it's perfectly fine to label someone a neocon if they happen to agree with just ONE neocon idea. But here we have liberals complaining about being labeled socialists when they happen to agree with a few socialist ideals.

And he's right, plenty of people were labeled as neocons when they disagreed with the Dems on this board.

He said ALL people were.

That makes him wrong.

First of all, that doesn't address the first part of my post and your apparent hypocrisy.

Second, you really take people this literally? Obviously he didn't mean that every single Republican that's ever posted on this board was called a neocon. Many conservatives were labeled neocons when they disagreed with the liberals on this board. I'm sure that you and your alt were around then, I'm surprised that you don't remember this.

Thanks for telling me what I and another poster meant, JD.

What the hell would we all do without you?

I think that Fingolfin would be fine, but apparently you'd go through life taking people way too literally, you're welcome.

Are you going to respond to the first part of my post?

Sorry JD, that was a conversation between Fingolfin and me: why should I bother responding to a butinski that's just looking for a fight?

Take your trashtalk elsewhere...Nobody here wants it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: feralkid


Sorry JD, that was a conversation between Fingolfin and me: why should I bother responding to a butinski that's just looking for a fight?

Take your trashtalk elsewhere...Nobody here wants it.

This is a public forum, if you're interested in private conversations you should probably take it to a PM. Stop DUHverting.

Well, there you have it. When you were pimping Neocon ideals, you were called a neocon?

How shocking!

Did you just misspeak here? It looks like you think that it's perfectly fine to label someone a neocon if they agree with just one or two neocon ideals. Is this true? How is that any different than people on the right labeling Democrats socialists when they agree with a few socialist ideals?