Really Stupid Question - I'm a little confused on how to use the word

[Amy6627]

Democrat. The right-wingnuts started calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party, which of course is wrong and a slap. But if you belong to the Democratic Party are you a Democrat?

Thanks!

[karlrschneider]

1. Yep.

:D
edit...

Democrat is a proper noun, Democratic is an adjective.

I'm a Democrat, I belong to the Democratic party.

[Amy6627]

3. Thanks! n/t

[rpgamerd00d]

2. Yes.

"Democratic Party"
"Democratic Senator"
"Senator Reid, a Democrat"
"I voted for the Democrat"
"I am a Democrat"
"My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle"

etc.

[Amy6627]

5. Thanks! n/t

[NovaNardis]

4. Democrat is a noun

So yes, you would be a noun, a Democrat. Democratic is the adjective, which would describe 'Party'.

Now 'Republican' functions as both a noun and an adjective. Why? Because it is slutty, I guess.

[Amy6627]

6. I prefer Whore! :)

[Jackpine Radical]

9. "Whore" functions both as a noun and a verb, so

one ma correctly say "Republican whores," and "Republicans whore."

[wryter2000]

8. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Stephanie]

16. Why? Because it's EASY.

Republicans hate hard work. And they're not very bright.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. ROFLMAO To the Slutty Comment!

:rofl:

I got a kick out of that.

:toast:

[wryter2000]

7. You have it right

Democrat is the noun. Democratic is the adjective.

[Hosnon]

10. A theoretical grammarian can better explain this but I'll give it a go:

An noun is usually formed by adding a suffix to create the corresponding adjective. Thus, "-ly" is added to "man" to convert the noun "man" into the adjective "manly".

However, this is not a concrete rule. In some aspects, such as the one we are dealing with here, no ending was added.

The parties existed before the individuals of the party (assumption). Thus, we had the Democratic and Republican parties. Democrats viewed the "-ic" as a suffix and called themselves Democrats. Republicans did not view the "-an" as a suffix and called themselves Republicans.

What the right is trying to do now is reverse the equation. They are assuming that the individual party member (Democrat/Republican) was "keyed" as a term before the party was. Furthermore, they base their grammatical model on the Republican model (which is arbitrary). Thus, because a group of Republicans form the Republican party, a group of Democrats must form the Democrat party.

The error, in my opinion, is assuming that grammar requires that both use a suffix - the term "Republican" does not imply such a suffix.

It's a two or three level error.

[hyphenate]

39. In fact

the word "Republican" comes from the word "Republic" which is one of the adjectives used by the founding fathers to describe the country they were building.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

[sandnsea]

44. democrat = people rule

Republic refers to the public as a whole, and the representatives chosen to rule. Adding 'an' is necessary to make Republican a noun identifying a person, or to turn it into an adjective or adverb.

Democrat is a completely different word structure, like aristocrat or plutocrat. It becomes Democratic when it turns into an adjective, referring to various characteristics of Democratic governance. You cannot be a democratic like you can be a mystic, that ship has sailed. Whenever one speaks of human being Democrats, Democrat is the proper usage. When one speaks of party values, party platform, or other Democratic characteristics - then it's Democratic.

I cannot believe I'm doing this again. I must be a masochist.

[DemBones DemBones]

11. Amy, there's no such thing as s stupid question.

Sometimes there are stupid answers, but you got good answers here.

The Republicans started this "Democrat Party" and "Democrat Senator" bit long ago. They apparently think it will make people think Democrats are not democratic. It's very childish behavior.

[hlthe2b]

12. Exactly... Stupid is NOT ASKING...

:toast:

[Beartracks]

14. THAT's the reason they do that?

How can you be sure it's not just another example of lazy American language usage, e.g. a politician or reporter once made a mistake that everyone now repeats without verifying?

[Stephanie]

17. it started around the time they aired an attack ad with subliminal messaging

that flashed democRAT over and over, so you were supposed to associate us with rats. they are so mature and high-minded.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. For Sake Of Accuracy, It Actually Started Long Before Such Ads Existed. nt

[Stephanie]

21. I guess you would know.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. Hey, You Know You Can Count On Me For Accuracy, Honesty And Integrity.

Just wanted to set the record straight, is all, since you may not have known it goes back much farther in history than you stated. :hi:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stephanie]

28. Oh you completely edited your post.

another dead give-away. I'll let mine stand.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stephanie]

34. OPERATIONMINDCRIME HAS ME ON IGNORE SO I CAN'T REPLY TO HIS POSTS

That's a very convenient out for anyone who'd like to disrupt without consequences. I think the new rule is ill-advised.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. I'm Disrupting By Giving An Honest Answer That The Term Was Older Than You Stated?

It is that type of attacking and abusive rhetoric as to why you are now ignored. You don't know how to converse with people.

My advice would be to not get so attacking and bitter at someone just because they politely enhanced the accuracy of something you stated. I mean my God, you really think this subthread is justified for me saying the term predates those commercials? Holy cow.

I have found it to be refreshing that I can now block posters who only serve the purpose of attacking me personally without discussing ANYTHING about the context of my post whatsoever. You have sought out in this subthread to do nothing more than attack me with no provocation and without justification. You have not responded to nor rebutted the context of what I said. It is that sort of childish mentality, of attacking me just for sake of some game of "yay! I'm attacking OMC! Look at me!", of which I will be sparing myself from by blocking those who partake in it.

Let me be clear, I would NEVER block ANYONE for disagreeing, even passionately and regularly, with me. But if the poster can only engage in personal attack without any substance or regard for context, then good friggin riddance.

[Stephanie]

37. He can reply to MY posts but I can't reply to his.

This new rule is kind of ridiculous, IMO. I'm not going to put the creep on ignore. I like watching him indict himself. If we put them on ignore they can sputter endlessly with no consequence. I won't do it.

[uppityperson]

43. So poster can follow you around and reply to yours?

I hadn't thought of that before. I wonder if that would be against DU rules of stalking? Seems if someone can't reply to yours, you shouldn't be able to reply to theirs. And I agree.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. No One Is Following Or Stalking Anybody.

Furthermore, the Admins have already explained that to death by giving the poster which is blocked the ability to block back. It is quite simple really, so there is no reason for your concern.

For the record, I have blocked the poster for obviously legitimate reasons, as the whole reason the Admins came up with such a beneficial tool is to thwart those who refuse to engage in civil discussion but instead will only default to unwarranted personal attack while completely ignoring the context of one's posts. It is refreshing to know that we can protect ourselves from those who only want to abuse, smear, attack or be vicious with no intent of discussion. I would never block someone for disagreeing, even passionately or in a heated fashion. But I will absolutely block those who seek out nothing more than attacking me personally just for sake of doing so. I can't stand when people don't reply to the context or substance but instead only attack. It's about time there's something we can do in our control to stop it. In this case, the poster stated something inaccurate, so I politely gave additional information. All I got in return was attacked and called a freeper for doing so, which is in my opinion the epitome of reasons to block somebody.

I'm off to bed. Goodnight.

[uppityperson]

47. you're not following, just replying to someone you blocked so they can't answer

and the Admins have explained, to death, that the one you blocked can block you. I see, I missed the to death explanations and still don't think it nice to respond to people who can't answer back.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Actually, Uppityperson, I Did No Such Thing.

The poster has about 3 other replies in which I let her have last word. I replied once, just once, to one of them. I let her other comments stand without reply as I knew it would be inappropriate to continue to reply directly when the poster can't. So spare me the self-righteous condescension as it is undeserved and inaccurate. The poster was inappropriately abusive and was blocked accordingly. Do you think being personally abusive instead of replying to context is appropriate? I don't, and in fact I think those that partake in it and the others that cheer them on and condone such childishness in reply are the greatest hinderences to the greatness of this site, and the reason the Admins came up with the enhancement to begin with. It is about time those that only know how to abuse and attack in disagreement with someone lose that ability to do so. I think DU will most definitely be far better for it and I'm thankful that the Admins came up with such a tool, though it's a shame it had to come to that.

Again, if you think that telling someone politely "hey, by the way, it actually roots back much further then that" is deserving of bitterness, animosity and attacks of being a freeper, then I'm sorry to hear that. But I don't, and I'm sure the Admins don't either.

Peace,

OMC

And on edit: You blocked me for reasons many DU'ers and the Admins have voiced concern about, which is simply to run away from civil disagreement. I have not attacked you in any way and you blocked merely for spite, which is your right but a concept of which I don't in any way approve of. At least my block was in direct response to personal and repeated abuse of which I didn't deserve, which is what the Admins had in mind to begin with.

[Poiuyt]

13. I believe this goes back to Newt Gingrich and the work of Frank Luntz

The word "Democratic" gives off positive vibes to focus groups. It is a good word and makes people feel good. Luntz and Gingrich therefore started to call us the Democrat party so that people wouldn't feel good about us. That's why I've started to refer to the Republican Party as the Asshole Party.

[Stephanie]

19. a perfectly undestandable mistake

how many times have I mistakenly said ASSHOLE when I meant to say Republican? It happens all the time! Through no fault of my own, of course.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. It Actually Goes Back Much Further, Hoover's Administration For Example.

[I Have A Dream]

40. Yes, here's the Wikipedia entry which discusses it.

http://tinyurl.com/ydlhhf

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Thanks!

:hi:

According to some here, only 'freepers' would've been privy to such education LOL

Thanks for supplying the link.

[I Have A Dream]

46. All I can say is...

Ooooga, Boooga, Woooga, Smoooga!

(Glad that I could help! :))

[Stephanie]

15. Republicans are not smart enough to use proper grammar.

So they are unable to negotiate the difference between adjectives and nouns.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Yes, The Term Is Democrat. I've Actually Grown To Completely Not Care About Them Using It That Way.

It has occurred to me that average people have not an IOTA of insight into it being a put-down or otherwise, and they'd look at you like you were nuts if you said to them "Hey! Did you here that? See? They're calling us the Democrat Party!!!!". Trust me, they'd think you were nuts.

So I kinda don't care anymore. I know they're doing it as a jab and with purpose to get to us, but like kids calling names if you just ignore it, it simply doesn't mean anything.

I know it really bothers some people, but I think I'm now in the boat of "Yeah yeah, they call us the Democrat Party, big friggin whoop". Way I see it, I'm proud to be a Democrat. Let them say Democrat all they want. Fuck 'em.

[Stephanie]

23. Uh-huh.

I believe you, actually. I'm sure you don't care.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. You Need To Learn To Respond In A Civil Manner Without Abusing People Who Disagree, Ya Know That?

[Stephanie]

38. In response to #33, I'll respond in any manner I see fit.

I call 'em as I see 'em. And I have a sixth sense. Not that it's necesary in this case. Know them by their spelling, among other things.

[Orangepeel]

41. I completely agree. The only thing it does is make Democratic activists mad

That's the only reason they do it and the only thing it does. Don't get mad, they lose.

[Rebellious Republican]

22. You have received some very good explanations so far as proper

english is concerned. However I will offer this explanation as well. For the most part, republicans do not know proper grammar or how to spell. I offer this as evidence, visit freeperville sometime, or tune into Larry the Cable Guy.

Need I say more?

[bridgit]

25. ummm, yes; if you're in the Democratic Party you are a Democrat believing in...

Democracy, if however and oddly, conversely speaking...you are member of the Republican Party, you are under no obligation whatsoever to believe in a republic

republic /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ –noun

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
4. (initial capital letter) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.
5. (initial capital letter, italics) a philosophical dialog (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

weird huh :shrug:

[Blue_In_AK]

48. Democratic, adjective; Democrat, noun.

It's very simple, really -- I don't understand why it's so hard for the right wing to "get it."

[frogcycle]

50. yes,

and if you belong to the republican party you're a republic
no, strike that
you're an asshole