The Democrats Dictionary

[Crossroads Inc.]

A friend of mine received an E-mail from a GOP mailing list he signed onto (evidently to receive bits of amusement and hilarity.) recently he received a List that has been making the rounds on the far right. Please Enjoy!

The Democrats Dictionary
by Debra J. Saunders

Doublespeak is alive as Democrats pull the strings in the White House and Congress 24 years after 1984. What do they mean when they engage in Democrat-speak?

I know I'm not worthy, but I've got an assignment, so I shall borrow a page from Ambrose Bierce, not with a Devil's Dictionary, but a Democrats' Dictionary. The easy part: There's no dif.

Academic freedom: Full license to espouse liberal thought to unformed minds.

Bailout: Billions upon billions -- trillions really -- of government aid doled out to financial institutions to remind voters of the need for strong regulation.

Biden, Joe: Running-at-the-mouth politician, but, hey, he was elected vice president.

Bipartisanship: 40 Republicans and 60 Democrats.

Bush, George W.: Big-spending, war-waging Republican.

Cheney, Dick: Satan.

Clean coal: What Santa Claus puts in Democrats' stockings so they don't have to admit that their global-warming agenda is anti-coal.

Climate change: Global warming during a blizzard.

CNN. Unbiased news network whose reporters battle "right-wing" media.

Deficits: Overspending before 2009, or spending practices that President Obama inherited. For current usage, see: Investment.

Extremists: Abortion opponents.

Fox News: Unlike CNN, biased news network.

Global warming: An apocalyptic theory that every scientist believes in -- except dissenting scientists who don't count -- best bemoaned from one's Gulf Stream jet en route to an international conference on the environment.

God: What people in small towns clung to before Obama won the White House. See: guns, anti-immigrant or anti-trade beliefs.

Health care costs: A spiraling chunk of the U.S. economy that can be reduced by providing health care to all Americans. Really.

Homeland security: Gun control.

Iraq: An immoral war, once the focus of numerous anti-war demonstrations, which Democratic leaders vowed to end immediately upon winning the White House -- until Obama won the 2008 election.

Liberal: The L-word, a term unfairly hurled by name-calling right-wing kooks.

Lieberman, Joe: Former Democrat turned Independent senator from Connecticut. Sellout.

McCain, John: Former GOP maverick who -- the nerve -- turned out to actually be a Republican.

Middle class: Families that earn less than $250,000 -- until Washington decides it might be a good idea to pay for all the new Obama-era programs.

Nuance: Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's decision to refer to terrorist attacks as "man-caused disasters." Formerly known as Doublespeak.

Obama, Barack. God, at least in Detroit.

Oil: A crude substance used to fuel other people's cars.

One hundred days. The first in a series of holy days during which dutiful media preside over national thanksgiving.

Palin, Sarah. White-trashy grandmother utterly unqualified and too dim-witted to be vice president.

Pandemic: CNN-speak for flu.

Pelosi, Nancy. Grandmotherly House speaker who could not be expected to understand that when Bushies authorized waterboarding of high-value detainees, it actually might happen.

Progressive: Liberal.

Public transportation: What other people should take to work.

Regulation: The threat of a salary cap for executives with firms receiving federal funds.

Republican Party: The party of the rich -- if the California inland empire and Central Valley are rich, and Beverly Hills, Marin County and Malibu are not.

Sacrifice: Something Bush never asked for during time of war. Now a tax hike for 95 percent of working families while U.S. troops fight in two wars abroad.

Specter, Arlen: Republican turned Democratic senator from Pennsylvania. Free thinker.

Stimulus: A rush in the nether regions at the prospect of spending trillions of dollars you don't have. Not to be confused with: Banking.

Surge: A tactic involving troop increases that could never work in Iraq, but always made sense for Afghanistan.

Tobacco: Toxic substance that should be overtaxed or banned -- unless it is marijuana. Then see: Medicine.

Tolerance: An essential element to civil societies; individuals deemed insufficiently tolerant must be re-educated.

War on terror: The fairness doctrine, the only weapon that can harm America's true enemy, Rush Limbaugh.

Waterboarding: Torture -- unless a plane piloted by terrorists hits a reservoir.

[Tanasinn]

The typical pap. I become increasingly convinced that the Republican party will never move away from the warmongering Jesus freak lunatics they've become.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

This is just priceless...

First off, the ones that are entirely true, yet are scathing, bad, and mocking for... some reason, I don't know.

Bush, George W.: Big-spending, war-waging Republican.

Cheney, Dick: Satan.

...

Extremists: Abortion opponents.

...

Health care costs: A spiraling chunk of the U.S. economy that can be reduced by providing health care to all Americans. Really.

...

Palin, Sarah. White-trashy grandmother utterly unqualified and too dim-witted to be vice president.

So, why are all these bad views for Democrats to have?

Next the outright, blatant lies:

Clean coal: What Santa Claus puts in Democrats' stockings so they don't have to admit that their global-warming agenda is anti-coal.

Umm, I'm pretty certain people who want to stop global warming are quite open about the need to reduce coal usage.

Iraq: An immoral war, once the focus of numerous anti-war demonstrations, which Democratic leaders vowed to end immediately upon winning the White House -- until Obama won the 2008 election.

So... can anyone find any sources where democrats stated they would end the war immediately when Obama won the election... as opposed to a slow phase-out of troops that would likely take a number of years?

Surge: A tactic involving troop increases that could never work in Iraq, but always made sense for Afghanistan.

Because the two situations are *entirely* identical! Oh wait, I forgot, all brown people look the same, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

Tobacco: Toxic substance that should be overtaxed or banned -- unless it is marijuana. Then see: Medicine.

Because democrats would be wholly against heavily taxing marijuana if it were legalized, right?

Next, the unintentionally hilarious ones:

Academic freedom: Full license to espouse liberal thought to unformed minds.

Conspiracy! Black helicopters!

God: What people in small towns clung to before Obama won the White House. See: guns, anti-immigrant or anti-trade beliefs.

Obama has the magical ability to make people stop believing in gods! The man is incredible!

Liberal: The L-word, a term unfairly hurled by name-calling right-wing kooks.

Kooks? Well, I suppose that's comparable to 'fascists', 'commies', 'traitors' etc.

Lieberman, Joe: Former Democrat turned Independent senator from Connecticut. Sellout.

Last I checked, no one was surprised, and everyone was quite happy he stopped weighing down the party.

McCain, John: Former GOP maverick who -- the nerve -- turned out to actually be a Republican.

They seem to have such a hard-on for the 'M' word, don't they? Welcome to two years ago, people.

Pandemic: CNN-speak for flu.

It *is* a form of the flu, you bleeding rectums! Like the kind that killed thousands not too long ago.

Public transportation: What other people should take to work.

I walk and bike to work, so this is entirely true.

Tolerance: An essential element to civil societies; individuals deemed insufficiently tolerant must be re-educated.

Conspiracy! Black helicopters!

[Darth Wong]

It says a lot about Republicans that they think so many factually accurate statements are so absurd that they should be treated as one-liners. Like the one about how universal health-care is actually cheaper per capita than the current US system; they dismiss it as utterly ridiculous even though it is factually accurate, for a number of reasons.

The whole list is a paean to gut-instinct thinking. The first entry is the most telling: "Academic freedom: Full license to espouse liberal thought to unformed minds." What they don't seem to realize is that this is exactly what academic freedom means: people should have full license to expose students to new ideas, even if right-wingers consider them to be "liberal thought". And what's wrong with that? Oh yeah: the Judeo-Christian notion that unapproved ideas are dangerous, like crystal meth.

The academic judges ideas based on how well-supported and well-argued they are. The right-winger judges ideas based on how conservative they are.

I allow my kids to hear religious propaganda. I don't go out of my way to expose them to it, but I accept that they will hear quite a bit of it in daily society, pop culture, etc. I'm not afraid because I'm confident that when they ask me what I think, my explanation will trounce whatever they've heard. Religious people do not share this confidence: they are terrified that their beliefs will not pass muster if challenged, so they want to suppress all challenge. That's why they consider universities to be the den of the devil, and that's why it's so important to them to alter science textbooks: if they can't compete with science on a level playing field, then perhaps they can undermine science instead, by insinuating their own beliefs into science textbooks. Imagine if scientists forced Christians to rewrite the Bible in the name of fairness.

[Sriad]

Tobacco: Toxic substance that should be overtaxed or banned -- unless it is marijuana. Then see: Medicine.

Because democrats would be wholly against heavily taxing marijuana if it were legalized, right?

It's even worse than you think. That statement directly says "Sometimes marijuana is tobacco."

Oh those lovable GOP scamps.

[General Zod]

I like how they're lambasting CNN as a leftist news network, even though CNN has a pretty big chunk of Republican cheerleaders on their news teams.

[Morilore]

Sacrifice: Something Bush never asked for during time of war. Now a tax hike for 95 percent of working families while U.S. troops fight in two wars abroad.

Wait... what? I don't get it. That's entirely self-consistent, but it's phrased like it's supposed to be hypocritical.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Sacrifice: Something Bush never asked for during time of war. Now a tax hike for 95 percent of working families while U.S. troops fight in two wars abroad.

Wait... what? I don't get it. That's entirely self-consistent, but it's phrased like it's supposed to be hypocritical.

That's the thing that makes so much of this so sad... Many of these things are factually true, and STILL meant to be insults.

Extremists: Abortion opponents.

Most Abortion opponents tend to be rather extreme.

Health care costs: A spiraling chunk of the U.S. economy that can be reduced by providing health care to all Americans.

Once again, factually true, providing government health care would vastly reduce expenses, whats the problems?

Oil: A crude substance used to fuel other people's cars.

Detect a trend here? Sure many of the list ARE out right insults, gross exaggerations and strawmen... But many of these, as you can see are basically "true" and they still laugh and joke about them.. "Ha ha, those silly Liberals, Healthcare for all could fix the costs of healthcare"

These people are really quite mad.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Health care costs: A spiraling chunk of the U.S. economy that can be reduced by providing health care to all Americans.

Once again, factually true, providing government health care would vastly reduce expenses, whats the problems?

It makes perfect sense when you realize that it's an article of faith with the Right that government anything is less efficient and more expensive. To them, cutting health care costs by having the government provide health care is a contradiction in terms; how it actually works in practice in other countries is ignored or handwaved away.

[Darth Wong]

Health care costs: A spiraling chunk of the U.S. economy that can be reduced by providing health care to all Americans.

Once again, factually true, providing government health care would vastly reduce expenses, whats the problems?

It makes perfect sense when you realize that it's an article of faith with the Right that government anything is less efficient and more expensive. To them, cutting health care costs by having the government provide health care is a contradiction in terms; how it actually works in practice in other countries is ignored or handwaved away.

Indeed. Remember Kinnison? He claimed government health care would always be more expensive than private health care. He was challenged to back that up. He ignored those challenges, and ranted about how the UK system is not utopian. He was presented with reliable sources showing that US health care overhead costs were FAR larger per capita than Canadian health care overhead costs. He ignored that too, and claimed he was unable to click on the link. He continued to state as fact that government health care would always be more expensive than private health care.

I can't make up my mind whether people like this know they're dishonest or are engaging in a form of religious belief, where faith and doctrine are more important than objective evidence.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I can't make up my mind whether people like this know they're dishonest or are engaging in a form of religious belief, where faith and doctrine are more important than objective evidence.

Given the self destructiveness of it - in most cases the policies they support are costing them money and inflicting inferior health care on themselves - I lean towards the "faith" explanation myself.

[Aaron]

Iraq: An immoral war, once the focus of numerous anti-war demonstrations, which Democratic leaders vowed to end immediately upon winning the White House -- until Obama won the 2008 election.

Hang on now, didn't the DoD estimates for withdraw done under their watch recommend a gradual withdrawl over a year or so? Basically the same thing Obama wants to do?

[Patrick Degan]

I can't make up my mind whether people like this know they're dishonest or are engaging in a form of religious belief, where faith and doctrine are more important than objective evidence.

Given the self destructiveness of it - in most cases the policies they support are costing them money and inflicting inferior health care on themselves - I lean towards the "faith" explanation myself.

I would tend to agree. Dishonesty at least implies a rational process at work. These people are continually voting against their own interests and that of their children and grandchildren as well based entirely upon an unexamined belief of one sort or another.