Betray-us vs Petraeus

[Bucky]

I find the constant name-calling strident, immature, and tiresome. But worst of all, it shows a lack of wit. I thought we were on the smart side of the debate. I don't think childish name calling reveals scorn, righteousness, or understanding of the reasons why we must end this costly, terror-supporting, ass-backward occupation of Iraq. It's not even clever by the standards of elementary playground taunts.

If he's really traded in his integrity to help those neocon pirates sell a war that we lost 2000 dead soldiers ago, then he's brought dishonor to his name. If that's the case, there's really nothing worse you can call him than "General Petraeus." Stridently repeating the same unclever insult over and over makes DU as a community look like a pack of ankle biters. I think we all have something a lot more substantive to add to the debate.

[AlCzervik]

1. Freepers have been calling him that for a long time, way before DU did.

[whirlygigspin]

7. PetroleumRus

and they buy almost 2billion in weapons from us! how cool is that!


$$$

[bryant69]

9. And you think Freepers are good examples of moral and civilized behavior?

How interesting.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[AlCzervik]

10. where did i say that? please point that out.

[AlCzervik]

12. and please point out where i called the general that.

[bryant69]

13. I admit it was an assumption

But when the question is whether or not calling General Petraeus "Betray Us" is a good idea, you pointed to the Freepers as having used it first. I admit it's possible you meant that "Of course we shouldn't do it, we don't want to be like freepers" but it reads like "They did it so we should do it too."

But it's possible I misread you, and I apologize if I did.

Bryant

[AlCzervik]

14. yes you did read thw wrong thing into my post.

i've done the same with posts as well, no harm, no foul.

[KittyWampus]

2. How about calling him "partisan political hack"?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. As a general rule, I'm against puns.

But anything that draws negative attention to this sad sack of shit is OK in my book.

[truebrit71]

4. Dunno....but I voted 'cos it had 'Egads' in it and that was as good a reason as any...

...to pick that one...

[mdmc]

5. dog and pony show = politics is a game

Bubba
Dub-ya
Betray-us

Silly names are part of the game...

[AndyA]

6. Sometimes, the name calling is the only thing that sticks.

Reference "flip flopper" from the 2004 campaign.

Today's "ME ME ME" public often doesn't retain much of what they hear, but a catchy phrase sometimes catches their attention. At this point, whatever works works for me.

Betray-us kind of defines the situation, does it not?

[Tesha]

8. Quite honestly, I'm tired of "losing by taking the high road".

If a few miles on the low road will win for once,
I'm all for it.

Tesha

[Karmageddon]

17. Ding! My sentiments exactly.

You don't argue with a three year old about the reasons why he can't have another can of Mountain Dew just before bedtime, you tell him "no".

You don't sit down and have a rational discussion with your dog about why he can't eat your shoe. You tell him "no".

You don't try to use reason and logic and have a nuanced debate about the complex subtleties of regional history and foreign policy with a neo-con, freeper, or ditto-head. You just say things like "Betray-us" and let that maximum three-syllable-limit slowly sink into the ooze between their ears.

[MADem]

11. I first heard that term from a couple of active duty soldiers, eons ago. NT

[doublethink]

15. Your poll is skewed from the beginning and I will not play ...

Why do you only ask those in favor of The Betray Us Report slogan to explain themselves ... and the first two choices ..... um no bias there. Any Advertising or Marketing experience? And just what is the attention span of the general American Public? Peace. :hi: ....

on edit: the third choice is phrased wrong ...... I would call it a Slogan and not 'name calling' but hey .... we can agree to disagree can't we. Peace again.

[cboy4]

16. I'd click on the "don't be so uptight," but I see it's not an option.

Seriously, don't be so uptight. It's just a clever play on words.

You also have a problem with the idiot in the White House being called the chimp?

[tom_paine]

18. Why does it work so well for THEM then?

Catch -22. Eh? We do it, we're immature loony moonbats.

Eight years of equal, if not greater, anti-Clinton vitriol...sane as sober as a judge if course.

It is the Perception Management and the Mighty Wurtlizer of Bushevik Propaganda that manufactures these impossible no-win situations for the defenders of Old Free America...and the Democratic Leadership, too.

Orwellian Double Standards. If not enough people can see outside the lines, they become Conventinal Wisdom, and the opposition is handcuffed by the lack of even a language in which to speak of opposition.

My God, it still all works as well as it ever has, maybe better.

:shakes head:

[Bucky]

19. I don't think it does work for them.

But if you want to emulate freepers and neocons, be my guest.

[tom_paine]

44. You miss my point entirely. Propaganda WORKS. It worked in 1937 Germany.

It works in 2007 Amerika.

The thing is, by posing the question, I was asking you to think about the underlying conditions, the "root causes", if you will (God, I hate using cliches) that have created this Bushian Reality, this Catch-22 of no-win situations where Bushies can namecall with the vilest impunity and not really lose any points with the public while our politicians and pundits can barely speak outside the narrow box of Bushie-defined Conventional Wisdom (Bushie Political Correctness) without being labelled crazy moonbats.

You took it as a puerile and infantile cry to emulate Freeper namecalling. :puke:

I thought you had been around long enough and read enough of my posts to have eliminated such a possibility. I guess I was wrong.

Finally, you said I don't think it does work for them.

That took my breath away. What can I say, but if you don't classify the last seven years of Bushevism a success for them, which infers success among the hundreds of strategic components that make up their propaganda program I like to call, collectively, Goebbels v2.0, then I suggest you have your head examined.

I try not to diss people's opinions like that, but if the last seven years are a FAILURE...

neutering the Democratic Leadership into near full-submission to Bushie policies
Bushifiying/Nazifying the entre executive branch
the breaking of the MSM into apathetic propaganda trumpet (98% of it) - gleichschaltung
Acceptance of Unitary Executive Principle - Fuhrerprinzip as national policy
End of Habeus Corpus and most of the Bill of Rights
Mid-way through Bushification/Nazification of the Judicial Branch - Democrats are afraid to go to court from DC Circuit to Supreme Court - Mission already accomplished then
Stolen elections in broad daylight, even with evidence laying around everywhere
More..MUCH MORE

...then what the eff does SUCCESS look like? The United States turned into a red GOPBorg cube where everyone daily praises Fuhrer, and Liberals are in Slave Labor Camps with Arabs? By your definition of what's "not working" for them, "success" would have to be something as extreme as that.

Think about what I have said, Bucky. Yeah, all I want to do is emulate Freepers. :puke:

[sandnsea]

23. A few reasons

First, when they attack someone of the stature of a general, they take apart their policies first. Then, AFTER they have thoroughly discredited the person's actions and views - they turn them into a personal clown. And they let their radio clowns do it, who can be poopooed away as "free speech". We haven't ripped apart what he said in the hearing yet, so we have shown ourselves to be biased before the man even opened his mouth. We attacked HIM, not the Iraq frame that was going to be presented.

[tom_paine]

45. Yep. The Democratic Leadership was never interested in counteracting

the rise of the Bushie Sub-Media and Lie Laundry. Now they re-write "reality" in the same way that all totalitarian media do, but they do it much more subtly and sophisicatedly.

And by counteracting, I don't mean emulating them and telling lies 98% of the time, I mean creating, if necessary, a mirror-image media substructure to get the FACTS out and shine light on the lies.

Robert Parry, one of the reporters who initially exposed Iran-Contra and one of the ONLY to dare expose the 1980 October Surprise, has been writitng about this aspect of it for years.

http://consortiumnews.com/2007/090507.html

[6000eliot]

20. How about "Distract-us" from the farce of this "report?"

[Bucky]

21. That sounds less hysterical.

So I suspect the people who think "betrayus" is clever word play will probably not like it.

[doublethink]

24. Not really ... hasn't quite the ring (or name recognition) to it like ......

THE BETRAY US REPORT

does it?

[Justitia]

22. So, you probably weren't a fan of "Impeach the Coxsacker!" either, huh? -eom

[Bucky]

27. Never heard that but at least that was clever, not whiny.

[JDPriestly]

25. Communication is not effective just because it conveys a rational idea.

Communication is most effective when it involves as many senses and emotions and associations as possible.

What does the word "pine" evoke in you. The smell of a campfire in the woods, the memory of a Christmas past, the odor of Pinesol? Words evoke feelings. That is why people use nicknames. What does the nickname "Red" suggest? Think of the names of the dwarves in Snow White. "Sleepy," what does that suggest? "Betrayus" rhymes with Petraeus. It contains the words "betray us." It is just natural for people to hear Petraeus and think Betrayus. The nickname "Betrayus" is just as appropriate as the nicknames "Red" or "Beanpole" or "Fatty" (as in Fatty Arbunkle). It is just natural to humans to communicate through rhymes and nicknames -- in order to convey feelings and associations. It is not our fault this guy has a name that rhymes with Betrayus. It is perfectly legitimate to use that name.

And forget about shaming people for calling people names. It is a natural phenomenon. The basis of language is expression and communication. Names like Betrayus are what language is about. You might as well try to purify the language of words like "sizzle" and stink and all those words we use for natural functions such as defecation, urination and copulation and they exist for the same reason -- cause we are human and it's our language and there really aren't any rules as long as the person we are talking to understands what we are talking about. What I think is silly is the original post. It's a waste of time. Trust me. I love languages and speak several. There are no rules. Petraeus got the nickname Betrayus cause it describes him perfectly. It's not mean. It's true.

Sorry for the diatribe. But this poll is way beyond stupid politically correct nonsense.

[Disturbed]

26. Who came up with the name, Defeato-crats?

Jus' wonderin'.... :eyes:

[Quixote1818]

28. Within the context of the ad, I think it scores a direct hit!

Outside the context of the ad, it sounds childlike.

This poll takes a very narrow look at this subject.

[JDPriestly]

43. I don't think it is childish or childlike.

I think it fits. Betrayus has apparently lent his name to efforts to misrepresent the terrible failure of the Bush government in Iraq a number of times. He is betraying the American people in order to keep his job. He is is betraying us. The name Betrayus is perfect. That is why people object to it so much. It hits home. The truth hurts.

I realize that he is a brave soldier. That does not make what he says about Iraq true or right.

[porphyrian]

29. Name-calling is fair play now that republicans have lowered the bar.

I find overtures of outrage and moral superiority to name-calling boring, elitist and ignorant of its classist aristocratic origin. That doesn't make me better than you, or you better than me. Ironically, your post is name-calling - strident, immature, tiresome, witless, childish. Maybe you should spend more time examining your own behavior before criticizing that of others on your own team.

[Bucky]

31. I guess we all pick our role models. Mine aren't the freepers.

[Bucky]

32. Probably worth noting, by the way, that most in the poll agree with me

If you act in a way that makes half your supporters cringe, it might be time to reassess how you present yourself.

[Quixote1818]

34. Be careful. It looks like the poll is shifting the other way quickly.

You had a big lead but it's almost even now.

[porphyrian]

33. Neither are mine. But you are the one calling people names for name-calling. - n/t

[goodhue]

30. Betrayus!

www.betrayusreport.com

[NashVegas]

35. We Have No Room for Pink Tutu Dems

If referring to Petreus as "Betrayus" advances a political agenda, so be it.

[Bucky]

36. I agree with your point. IF, repeat, IF it advances an agenda, it's worth it.

The problem is that talking like a schoolyard brat does not advance opposition to the occupation of Iraq. Just over half the posters on DU alone (going by this poll) find it silly. It's counterproductive.

[rug]

37. We should refrain from calling blood-soaked scumbags bad names.

[Bucky]

38. I just think it's interesting that comments are running 10 to 1 in favor of "Betray us"

Yet the votes remain about evenly split. This might indicate our signal to noise ratio.

[Swamp Rat]

39. If the shoe fits...

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. We're finally fighting back! MoveOn showed up with a gun to a gunfight...FINALLY someone has the

balls to stand up and fight. Why is it the Democrats who always have to take the same old DEAD END HIGH ROAD??? I'm sick of it. How do you think we ended up where we are? We're here BECAUSE we never fought back. We always took the High Road and look where that got us.

Betray Us is a very clever play on his name and IT WORKS in this illegal invasion issue. STAND UP AND FIGHT BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

[Imagevision]

41. Petraeus, any large attacks in Iraq? we don't count because they don't fall within normal guidelines

for where we get our figures from to determine attacks today vs. a year ago.

[nam78_two]

42. Other: this is a non-issue.nt