The real GOP rebranding

Ever since they suffered significant defeats in the 2012 election, the Republican Party has talked about "rebranding" themselves. This has been anything but successful, as for every one pro-women's or pro-minorities' rights speech they give, it seems as if they give four or five in the opposite direction.

When I thought about the GOP and "rebranding" the other night, though, a thought occurred to me - the party has been quite successful with the concept of rebranding, just not when it comes to their party's image. No, the kind of rebranding I'm talking about is in reference to words. Let me run down a list of the words or concepts the GOP has seemed to successfully rebrand over the years (unfortunately):

Liberal
Actual definition: "Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties," "favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal believe or expression," "open-minded or tolerant," and/or "characterized by generosity."

GOP's rebranded definition: "Worthless moochers, takers, and socialists who just want to destroy freedom and punish success."

Socialism
Actual definition: "A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

GOP's rebranded definition: "What Democrats all are. It's the same thing as communism. These no good, stinkin' communist socialist Marxist progressive liberal Democrats are trying to destroy what our Founding Fathers had in mind with capitalism!"

Welfare
Actual definition: "Receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need."

GOP's rebranded definition: "Lazy, irresponsible, drug addicts, who don't want to work and just want to take our money, so they can continue being lazy, irresponsible drug addicts!"

Patriotism
Actual definition: "Devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty."

GOP's rebranded definition: "Shouting to the the heavens about how much you love your country (while doing little to nothing to actually show that)."

Christian
Actual definition: "Of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ."

GOP's rebranded definition: "Screaming with all your might how much you love Jesus; giving to the rich and taking from the poor; condemning gays and slutty baby-killers (pregnant mothers); you know, loving everyone like Jesus would."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriotism?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian?s=t

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog