Sure. It’s not perfect, but it’s more manageable than “people-who-voted-for-Obama.”
But the point being, it’s hardly name-calling to use that as short hand. It’s not in the same catagory as “Obamaniac”.
Because board lefties taught us that these are okay terms for people who voted for someone.
SD Hits for posts 2006 and older (to weed out any mentions of Obama or Clinton):
“Bush+Supporter” = 750 posts
“Bush+Kool-Aid” = 99 posts
SD Hits for posts 2008 and older:
“Bush+Loyalists” = 120 posts.
Funny thing is, Snowboarder Bo, I didn’t see you pipping up in response to any of those posts saying you shouldn’t call people who voted for Bush any of the terms you object to being applied to people who voted for Obama. *I *don’t think “supporter” or “loyalist” are slurs, but obviously you do. Why does it bother you now, but not before?
I don’t think it’s at all accurate.
I voted for Obama. How does that translate into supporting everything he does?
I had to vote for someone; that’s one of my responsibilities as a member of this society. How do you equivocate that one vote to unfailing, unfliching support for the man and all his actions?
And how do you apply that to everyone who voted for him?
I don’t remember anyone using the terms “Bushista” or “Bushvic” in 2000. I remember people using that term after Bush had fucked up everything he touched for years and years, and the Bushistas were still blindly defending everything he did.
Rethuglicans were accusing democrats of thinking Obama was the messiah before he even got elected. Different ball of wax, unless you can link to a post from pre-November 2000 showing that I’m wrong.
No, those names came later (from my own memory anyway), and the catchy nature and wide spread use and the glee with which the left used them probably has a great deal to do with how quickly the right has latched on to using the same tactics right back against Obama.
What I DO remember is how the left railed on and on about how Bush was going to outlaw abortion, put prayer in schools, make burning a flag a capital offense and push through a whole slew of DOMESTIC conservative agenda points…oh, and how he ‘stole’ the election and wanted to make America a Fascist country, blah blah blah. Blah. Blah. Granted, it DID take them a while to come up with a catchy name to call him and his administration, but it’s not like they gave him a pass until we invaded Iraq.
-XT
People, it’s all so simple. Our President is The Blackman. Your women want his sex. Your kids want his music. He is naturally charismatic, and even if he is totally incompetent, we’ll hand him the keys to the kingdom and go boogieing happily off into depravity. So he must be destroyed, whatever the cost to society.
Nice strawman there. Did you build that yourself, or did you need help?
I don’t think being a “supporter” is a slur, no, except when it’s followed by a slur or the implication that blame is being levied or something.
I’m not in lockstep with the right. I’m also not in lockstep with the left. I voted for the guy, yeah, but as a (semi)responsible citizen of this country, it’s my duty to vote for the best candidate, and IMO he was the best choice. So I voted for him.
But why lump me in with people who give money and time and design webpages and canvass door-to-door, etc.?
It’s not that it’s offensive in and of itself, it’s that the label is inaccurate and is continually being applied. You just did it to me in the post I quoted, there, in fact.
And it’s my contention, based on my own experiences and conversations, and based on the evidence right here in this thread, that righties use these types monikers, even when they have no basis in fact. Further, I contend that the vast majority of times that such monikers are used, they have no basis in fact.
And as I said, GWB was a semi-known commodity when he was elected. His family and his family’s friends have been in the upper echelon of business and politics for a century. I still have no problem with people not wanting to see America turn into a place of landed gentry or politically privileged lineages. You wanna argue how the Kennedy’s are like that too? Yep, they are. I can see an argument against electing one of them just based on that fact, even if they live in Montana. It’s a valid point.
There were other things we knew about Bush that people could point to and wail about. His fucked up stewardship of, oh, everything he ever came into contact with was documented in public business records, and in the case of the Texas Rangers, well publicized. People had negative outcomes to point to when bitching about Bush.
What negative outcomes did Obama have prior to Jan. 2009 that people were pointing to as evidence of his being unfit to lead the country?
But do you remember how, just a couple of weeks into Bush’s first term, there were coordinated protests all over the country about his policies (that hadn’t been proposed yet, in a lot of cases)? No? Hmm, maybe that didn’t happen.
I’m still waiting for those cites, so we can all see what you saw, xtisme, that formed your perceptions and all.
Can we get cites with dates, too, since there is now some question about exactly when these equivalent monikers from the left were first used? Thanks.
Again: I don’t think you are going to be able to show even close to the same volume or same level of vitriol from the first 2 years of GWB first term as I could show from the first 2 years of Obama’s term. I’m ready to look at your evidence, tho
If you aren’t bothered by the terms, why did you bring them up in the very first sentence of your OP? You point then was “why do people talk about people who voted for Obama”? Catchy hook.
I’m sorry. The way you I read this:
you are saying that Hillary was the first to use the moniker “the Messiah” in reference to Obama.
The phrase “used it first”, it being the moniker of “teabaggers”, is used in the first part of the sentence. The sentence then concludes “did it, too” and this “it” would be “used it first” since it makes no sense to think that “it” refers to the moniker of “teabaggers”, not when you already supplanted that with the moniker “the Messiah” in the second part of the sentence.
Are you now saying that isn’t what you meant? Did you in fact mean that the #2 Democrat called Obama a teabagger?
Let me help you out. It seems that some of the data is being lost in transmission on teh internets or something. I’ll bold the parts that must not have appeared on your screen last time, so you can see what you missed.
Huh, that’s weird. That sentence is right there in the quote in your post, but somehow you missed reading it. /shrug. It happens, I guess.
At any rate, this one you didn’t quote so I can only assume that it wasn’t properly sent to your computer.
Again, that’s why I brought all this up. Or at least that’s one reason.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072508/content/01125107.guest.html Here is Rush being his nasty self in 2008.Note the terminology. It was obviously not the first time he used it.
No. If I had wanted to say “first”, I would have said “first” and not “too”. I specifically chose that word so as not to say “first”.
It really isn’t important if Hillary said it first, second or 101st. Point being, once a leading Democrat like Hillary uses the imagery, it’s a free-for-all in the same way lefties use “teabaggers”.
Did Hillary say it at all?
Just once, in the throes of multiple orgasm.
What a strange thread.
Hard to picture her even having one in a row, somehow…
Okay, so you used the word “too”. Usually, this word is used to mean “also”. In that case, what you wrote is the equivalent of “the #2 Democrat did it, also”.
“It” is a pronoun, meaning it refers to a noun for context and meaning.
So what did your pronoun “it” in the phrase “the #2 Democrat did it, too” refer to? Again: are you saying that you meant that Hillary had called Obama a teabagger, or are you saying that Hillary had called him that first? Or is there some other way that the words you wrote can be read that I am missing?
xtisme, after re-reading one of your posts, I realized that this
was really poorly phrased by me. Replace the word “lefties” with “everyone who voted for him” and the query makes more sense in the context of the OP.
I apologize for the poor phrasing there, as it didn’t get the thrust of the query correct at all.
I think Snowboarder “O” just has a simple case of buyer’s remorse.
But the:
“I just voted for the guy, how dare you call me an Obama supporter???”
just doesn’t fly.