Conservative lingo...

One thing that annoys me to no end is the use of words that allow conservatives to frame an issue from their perspective. This puts liberals and leftists at a disadvantage when dealing with the swing voters, for they already have a frame of mind that is no more than a slogan with no inkling as to what it actually means.

For example:
Entitlement takers: i.e. retirees and other people on Social Security and/or Medicare. OK I do not get this, an entitlement is something you are ENTITLED to because you payed into it, at least most people on SS and Medicare did or do. Don't they deserve the money back? Also those who are too disabled to work, who cannot pay into the system, what are we to do with them? Eliminate them, or just let them starve on the street? I would like conservatives and libertarians to justify that. No cop-outs about the glories of private charities, because the truth is that they do NOT have the resources necessary to meet the needs of all of these people.

Nanny/Welfare-State: This to me seems to be a non-issue, one that the fiscal conservatives love to bring up, but have few facts to back them up. They love to vilify AFDC and Foodstamps, which are the programs they critize the most, yet they take up only about 1-3% of the annual budget. That's chump change, compare it to Pentagon Budget, and most people will see where their money is really being wasted.

Privatization/Deregulation: OK I have no clue who thought of this BRILLIANT idea, but they need to be taken out to the shed and bludgeoned, severly. So businesses are supposed to regulate themselves, when is that going to happen? Hell its been tried before, and the market crashed. Why stop at energy companies, utilities, and SS. Why not privatize roads, or health care, (my bad, already privatized), or even better water. I could only imagine the chaos that would come from privatizing roads, imagine tolls at every mile or ten nationwide, or surcharges to have the "Priviledge" of driving to work. Even better, why not pay $1.20 for 8 oz of water, with no alternative at all. How about police and fire departments, they are dreaded public services, I say that only those who can afford it should get police and fire protection, screw the other 90%.

Ok these are some examples of the Repubs mastery of sloganry, can you think of other words or phrases they use to frame the debate.

and "racial quotas" come to mind.

During his tenure as Mayor of Indianapolis, he forced City agencies to concetrate on fending off efforts to privatize them instead of service to the citzens. It was hard doing both. Some departments, like the Cable Agency and Fleet Services were succesful, others, like the jail annex and IT were not, and the taxpayers have paid out the ass for the jail and IT ever since.

"Privatization" is a false religion.

Goldsmith is now a VP for I believe McDonald-Douglas or Raytheon, after a stop at the Office of Faith-Based Give-aways....(another false religion)

When someone tells me they would never support raises for the lowest income people, my answer is this:

Why do you support funding the operating costs of private businesses?

Wages are operating costs. If companies pay their employees so little, we the taxpayers end up footing the bill for food stamps and other subsidies.

My answer to the standard conservative line about how paying low wage earners a living wage kills motivation to work hard is this:

Where's the incentive to work hard now?

Low wage earners can work till they drop but they still don't make enough money to support themselves. They can work two or three jobs just to get by. Meanwhile some of the more greedy corporate execs pay themselves huge bonuses for showing up. Their companies may be failing but they still get huge BONUSES over and above their salaries.

I guess I have an outdated definition of what the word "bonus" means. To me it means that you've done well, here's a little something extra to say: Good Job!

are annoying buzz words used by even the most simpLe minded cnut to decLare a higher ground for themseLves, or victory in a debate. it's incredibLy effective since one can reaLLy onLy roLL their eyes and Laugh.

as if taxation is an unfair burden on society. Taxation is the fee you pay for living in a society that runs. If you don't want your society to work properly, then by all means eliminate taxes. We should substitute "paying your fair share" every time we hear this odious phrase.

It also cracks me up when the RW spin machine talks about Kerry voting to raise taxes. Kerry is a member of CONGRESS. One of the constitutional functions of CONGRESS is to LEVY TAXES. It's his JOB, people. Hello!

End of rant...sorry.

there are so many

This has become my personal favorite. I guess the definition would be am unelected judge (as they should be) who rules against the wishes of a conservative viewpoint. Amazingly absent was the call "activist judges" when the US Supreme Court stopped the Florida recall. To me, an "activist judge" would be that piece of *^%& Judge Moore in Alabama would placed the Ten Commandments in his courthouse.
BushCo has effectively destoyed the court system in my opinion, due to his disrespect of their position. Again, the right wing hate machine is portraying the "court" in general as rogue and that every judge now needs to rule as BushCo wants, or they will be labeled. Remember, those of us who are against this occupation in Iraq are all "un-American" and "un-Patriotic. Shame, shame, shame.

The conservative control of the language of the debate allows them to control the debate. The worst one on your list is "Nanny state." It immediately conveys the image of their opponents as nosy old ladies poking their noses in where they don't belong. You can't fight that image. To win the debate, you have to respond with your own language that ridicules the conservative side.

We have to find the images that can turn the debate around; then define the conservative side with these images. On debates about the welfare state, I think the conservative side has to be portrayed as the spoiled rich kids, trust fund babies, something that ridicules their position.

To lose control of the language is to lose the debate.