Posted on 09/20/2007 9:47:55 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
WHY DEMOCRATS JUST ABSOLUTELY HATE BEING CALLED .....
I've always being one who likes to get under the skin of the collective left, and glorioski, have I found a way to rattle Democrats. You just refer to their wonderful party as the Democrat Party! Lordy, does this put a burr in their thongs.
Well .. now I think I've found out why! A buddy of mine at CNN (who, for obvious reasons, shall remain unnamed) provided me with some interesting information. Joseph J. Ellis wrote a book called "Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation." I ordered my copy this morning. One of the Amazon.com reviews for this book says "This book is really unique in that it gives a really interesting perspective not only on the men [our founding fathers] , but the dynamic between them." Now in that book by this renowned historian you will find some tasty information on the origination of the word "democrat." Many times I've told you that our founding fathers were none too fond of the idea of democracy, or, as they viewed it, mob rule. Here's the quote:
"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'" Don't you love it? Could anything better define today's Democrat Party? Get with the program folks. It's the Democrat, not the "Democratic" Party.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
I call them Democrat-ICK Party.
i saw this book in a store and wondered if you had it.
Yes, in the 18th century terms like “democrat” and “democratic” and “democratical” (commonly used then, though not now) were almost always terms of abuse — implying irrational mob rule and demagoguery. Virtually all of the founders thought they were creating a “republic” not a “democracy” due to the problems that are exemplified by our contemporary demagogues: frenzied and irrational appeal to the passions, reckless depravity, etc.
btw, while Joseph Ellis is supposed to be a fine historian, he is also the guy who fabricated a whole section of personal biography over the years to puff up his early years:
http://hnn.us/articles/8656.html
For nearly a decade, in his classes at Mount Holyoke on Vietnam and American culture, Ellis would enrich the course content by recounting his own experiences in the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement. In 2000, in an interview with the Boston Globe, he made a number of claims. He said that he had served in Vietnam in 1965 as a leader and paratrooper with the 101st Airborne Division. He said that he had worked on the staff of General William C. Westmoreland in Saigon. He said that he had been active in the civil rights movement and in the peace movement.
A little research subsequently revealed that he had lied. As an undergraduate he served in the R.O.T.C at William and Mary, emerging from the program in 1965 as a second lieutenant. Instead of serving in Vietnam, as claimed, he had attended graduate school at Yale. He was not active in either the civil rights movement or the peace movement. After he graduated with a doctorate in 1969, he began active duty, but he served not in Vietnam but as a history professor at West Point, where he remained until 1972, when he finished his duty as a captain.
To many it was a shock that Ellis would risk so much for so little.
Just to tick them off more, ask them what do they call themselves in a group. I asked several democrats just that.
"If you are in a meeting, are you a group of democratics?"
That will make them spit nails.
ORIGIN late 18th cent.(originally denoting an opponent of the aristocrats in the French Revolution of 1790): from French démocrate, on the pattern of aristocrate aristocrat.
LOL. Too funny. I hope it gets widely circulated...
Someone should make a change on the Democrat Party entry in Wikipedia to note the history and meaning of their name.
I’d like to know when they became the Democratic party. It sure wasn’t around in 2000. I don’t remember if they had started using it yet for 2004. Anyway, I still call them the Democrat party, when I can’t call them what I want.
I think that it'd be even funnier if Bush referred to either "Democraps" or the "Democrapic" Party - by mistake, of course. :>)
Bush did not use the exact term by accident.
they are card carrying Socialists
it is likely few of them are aware of its meaning at the time of the Founding.
we are not a democracy in the first place - we are a REPUBLIC.
We have forgotten this - or, for those 'educated' in our gov't schools in the past 3+ decades - have not been taught it.
Fred is re-educating us.
I would like to start a movement to have the Republican Party change their name to the “Pro-America Party.” What do you all think?
Why we are a Republic: democracy = mobocracy
I don’t think you’ve got it yet...
It’s not any historic reference that they’re ashamed of.
It’s the here and now. Just like communism/socialism/liberalism/progressivism - the label comes to mean what it is referring to.
The Democrats are like any other group that exhibits behaviors that are sub-par. They keep changing their label because everyone eventually associates the label with the behavior.
Perfect
“Liberal” WAS a good, grand term. It meant someone who believed in maximal individual freedom and liberty AND the requisite accompanying personal responsibility.
Communists and people who wanted to be dependent on the work of others sullied the term.
but what can we "expect" from a party that uses the jackass as a mascot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.