SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 12:49 PM
Original message |
Who else is creeped out by the use of the word "Chairman"? |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-06-06 12:59 PM by SoCalDem
Every time I see republicans conducting a love-fest on tv, someone refers to Chairman Frist.. or Speaker Frist
Senator Frist, I can accept...same for Dr. Frist (even though he cheated on his paperwork)..or even Mr. Frist...or even Bill Frist...but
Chariman?? come on.. It's so...well..Red China of them (harkening back to a departed era)..
These are the same freaks who insit on calling the Atty Gen....General (in a militaristic sense), even though the term "general" is meant in a NON-military sense..
and of course the dems are onto it too..just as they did with the "democrat party" stuff.. republicans coin phrases, and instead of fighting it off and calling them out..they started saying "Chairman Pelosi" or "Leader pelosi".
The only people who even give a rip, already KNOW these people are in charge...the rest of the people couldn't care less..
This republican menace and theior stranglehold on language is downright dangerous, and I am so longing for them to be gone..
I envision a day (hopefully soon) when the media will no longer cater to them..I hope that we will someday turn on a tv, and see some liberal ideas...
|
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message |
1. What about the many DU'ers who say "Chairman Dean"? |
SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. That's creepier, since we should know better |
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Er, it probably reminds you of Chairman Mao.n/t |
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 12:53 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I'm looking forward to Chairman Conyers, Chairman Frank, etc etc |
|
Doesn't bother me in the slightest...
|
SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. I do not object to the TITLE, just the constant usage of the apellation |
|
Like I said, the people who are "in the know", already know what these folks do for their job, and the rest of the people out there don't care , and probably could not pick any of them out of a line-up..
It's an awkward sounding thing.. Like introducing your boss, as "section-leader, Al"..:)
|
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
13. Actually, the proper appellation is "Mr. Chairman" |
OzarkDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 12:56 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I recall when they started calling him that - it was so ridiculous, comical even. No one had ever called an AG by that honorific in recent history.
Where is Ashcroft these days? Working as a highly paid lobbyist I assume.
|
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 12:58 PM
Response to Original message |
6. It weirds me out, too. |
|
It's somehow related to the fact that these people have to keep impressing themselves and others that they're in charge. It goes hand-in-hand with ignoring all the information handed over to them by the Clinton people.
A related behavior that some of the Democrats have also engaged in: writing torrid novels about a super-Congressman or super-Senator who somehow saves the country from a mad conspiracy a la Tom Clancy. Here these people are in some of the most important jobs in the world and they seem to spend their time engaging in Walter Mitty fantasies!
|
datadiva
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I know this is about Frist |
|
but the repubs have been using the Commander in Chief title rather frequently of late. I hate when they do that. He's not my Commander in Chief. They've been using a lot of these titles lately. They think it makes them look strong. Problem is it just makes him look more ridiculous.
|
SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. He is not as Chertoffian lately. Looks like he's put on weight. |
|
He used to look like a painted cadaver, but today his face looked plumped.. Like a ballpark frank..:)
|
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
14. Being President isn't good enough for George. |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-06-06 02:00 PM by hedgehog
I think Commander-in-Chief was originally meant to indicate that the President was ultimately responsible for determining strategy and tactics either directly or though his appointed officers. In other words, Congress couldn't interfere directly in the disposition of troops, etc. The way the title of Commander in Chief has been distorted to by-pass the need for a declaration of War is tearing this country apart. I can't blame the Republicans alone for this. Democratic Presidents have also sent the troops into battle with little or no permission.
|
Nicholas D Wolfwood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 01:13 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Those are officially earned titles. |
|
Sorry, but those are NEVER going away, nor did they start with the Bush administration.
|
Cobalt-60
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 01:23 PM
Response to Original message |
11. perhaps "The Chairman" |
|
A nice cold war piece featuring Gregory Peck? Don't let it creep you out, it's just a title. Chancellor, now that one gives me a chill...
|
undeterred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 01:24 PM
Response to Original message |
madinmaryland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 02:02 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Chairman of the Board?? |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 06:40 PM
Response to Original message |