My Own Coined Appellatives:
Words, Phrases, and Epithets, Usually Based on the Idiocy Around Me
What is “The Abortion Party”, Joel?
In May 2014, Liberal Party of Canada leader Justin Trudeau declared that the party will no longer allow any normal pro-life candidates to run. Only those who embrace abortion, he dictated, will be allowed to be Liberal Party candidates. Thus, they are in fact The Abortion Party. Liberals don’t care that abortion is the most disgusting, most egregious thing ever thought of by humans.
Also see What is the “you’ve got to be kidding party?”
Why do you call the CBC the “state-owned” CBC?
I started calling it this back in 2002 or something. Largely because it is. And because it drives liberals batty on account of it sounding too much like reality — too overtly socialist. It helps betray their disguise as Fabian Socialists, which, make no mistake, they most certainly are (though many are too dumb to even know it).
Since then, many others have taken to calling it that, or something like that. I should get royalties for the stuff I make up. I’m a victim. Hey “I’m a victim!” Oh sorry — already taken by the left.
Why do you ever-so rudely refer to Liberal Bob Rae as “Bare-Ass” Bob Rae, Joel?
Because It’s a cheeky way to describe a man who, when he was running to be Liberal Party leader and ultimately a world leader and moreover my Canada’s Prime Minister, thought it was perfectly appropriate to take all his clothes off in front of TV cameras — state-owned, state-run CBC TV cameras — and frolic around, buck naked, just to score some cheap-ass political points, and I suppose in order to show his fat ass and tiny weiner to all Canadians on national TV, because they have a right to see these parts of their leader (apparently forgetting that only total morons and CBC apologists would appreciate his stupid ass embarrassing-to-all-Canadians stunt, and that only 14 people ever watched the stupid CBC).
First used in this blog entry (with honorable mention to this blog entry), it applies to the media and all liberals’ incessant fawning — to the point of orgasmic exultation — at the mere mention of the name Barack Obama, and the very chance that he may run for President as a Democrat. It could also apply to the liberals and their media when they get the chance (or simply make one up) to mention the name “Trudeau”, particularly, these days, “Justin Trudeau”. (See the quintessential Justin Trudeau Video made by me — possibly now in YouTube prison due to YouTube harassment of my content -ed). Tudeaugasm is much the same in the Canadian context. And now you may barf.
What’s the “tea and a bun set”?
Not that we’re pro-war. Far from it. But these are the folks who, no matter what, insist on further “negotiations” and panels and committees to stop a war, prevent a war, end a war, or end any other such atrocity of life, in pursuit of their Utopian dreams. It doesn’t matter to these people how many previous tongue-wagging attempts have failed. They insist on more quiet chitchats over a nice cup of tea and a bun. The fact that Osama bin Laden would just as soon stuff the bun up the infidel’s butthole doesn’t sway the tea and a bun set. They simply bend over. The tea and a bun set often have ulterior motives. This is reason 800 why we don’t vote for them.
What is the you’ve got to be kidding party?
It’s the far-left socialist NDP or New Democratic Party. They’re the pantywaist party which is too scared to call themselves the Socialist Party of Canada, or to even admit in public during election campaigns (or at any other time) that they stand for socialism first and foremost — and an end to our capitalist Canada as we know it. They stand for global socialism as well of course, as most socialist and communist parties the world over do. Their constitution says: “The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world…”. They don’t admit this or talk about it during elections because they want to fool Canadians into voting for them. They insist that no, no, no, they’re “DEMOCRATIC!!!!!” socialists (they always emphasize the word excessively) , pretending that there is one iota of difference. Their hidden agenda, therefore, is to thrust Canada into a backward socialist state not unlike many we have already seen collapse in the world. Yet the mainstream media take them seriously, largely because the NDP are owned and run by big huge multi-million-dollar global labor unions including the media unions, and most media reporters are politically far to the left of mainstream Canada. The reporters, therefore, skew their reporting to the left, sanctifying the NDP, propping them up, and a large segment of the Canadian public thus takes the party seriously and actually votes for a socialist party and an end to free-market capitalism in Canada, because they still think the Canadian liberal-left media is fair and balanced. Now if the words “you’ve got to be kidding” don’t dribble out of your mouth, then you’re one of them.
I coined this phrase. It’s among my finest work. It’s a phenomenon whereby liberals get themselves worked-up into what they think is an “intellectual” thing but really it’s just a mindless frenzy, and then start uttering largely insane things, employing word salads because they’re daft, and do this often in the most public way, in the most public places. Often it’s utterly delusional garbage. Nonsense. Crapola. Pure bullshit. And then the “news” media cover for them by explaining to us stupids “what they meant.” It is pure gold. It serves the interests of conservatives everywhere. We enjoy it for its humor. We even created an official award for it.
Example, Joel?
• “Deputy leader of You’ve Got To Be Kidding party, Libby Davies oozes brain poo on YouTube”.
Another one?
• “PTBC’s new Oozing Brain Poo award—it’s their daily constitutional!”
This isn’t used much anymore, on account of the fact that there are so many of them now. For example, watch, read, or listen to most any lib or lefty talk about climate change, or how “men can breastfeed.” I didn’t make this one up — the exact origin is a little foggy. I first saw it at LittleGreenFootballs a long time ago. They don’t claim ownership either. They suggest it came from samizdata.net. Fine. It’s a perfect word to describe liberals of the insane variety. The real winners.
Why do you call Saskatchewan “A li’l bit of the Soviet Union right here in Canada”, Joel?
Because it was exactly like a little bit of the Soviet Union, right here in Canada, in almost every way, but particularly in the way the folks vote, its climate, its economy, its politics, its trajectory, and everything else about it… until a conservative-minded government was finally elected, and literally saved it. Now I don’t call it that anymore. Because it isn’t like that anymore.
I claim ownership of this one. It describes the liberal-left’s effort to change Canada into what they would prefer, since they apparently hate Canada the way was conceived and the way it is now. Canada isn’t liberal enough for them, and they strive for more. “Mo” is meant as a play on the urban slang for more, as in the film “Mo Better Blues“; and at the same time a play on the slang for a gay person, also known as a homosexual, or a homo, which can be shortened to mo (this is used even by the homosexuals or “mos” so I feel I’m alright with the liberal-left “You’re a homophobe!” brigade).
Why do I always say “Vote liberal”?
I don’t really mean it. It’s called extreme sarcasm. As in, “Vote liberal — yeah, right, as if.”
Why do I type liberal with a small “l” and a capital “L”?
It’s actually the accurate way to do it. The Liberal Party or someone I’m identifying with the Party gets a capital “L”. But anyone who isn’t a conservative (note the small “c”) is a liberal with a small “l”. I alternately use “liberal-left” in some cases to ensure you understand that I’m including all of the left — the Liberals and the NDP etc. — in that camp. Note that it isn’t as easy to interchange the small “c” and the capital “C” with the Conservative Party and their members and followers, because many of them are actually liberals. They may be fiscal or economic conservatives, but social liberals. They like to call themselves “moderates”. They’re liberals. Again: liberals. I often say they’re half a conservative, and a half a conservative is a liberal. And I’ll go ahead and take credit for that turn of phrase.
Why do I spell words the American way?
It isn’t the American way. In Canada, we can spell words using the traditional British spellings, French spellings, or the American spellings. Nobody can tell me otherwise. In addition, most software is created by Americans, and use American spell-check dictionaries by default. That suits me, because I often have to spell-check documents that include computer code. Try writing “colour” in any programming language or coding like HTML. And last but not least, it drives liberals batty because they hate America.
Why do I always call Canada’s healthcare system (and other things that liberals do like their socialist daycare ideas) a “Soviet-style” or “North Korean-style healthcare/daycare system”?
The obvious answer is that “it is… a North Korean-style healthcare system”. But the root of the phraseology is that I stumbled upon (can’t honestly remember if I simply read it somewhere or found it out myself from my pretty vast research) the fact that only two other countries in the world aside from Canada forbid, by law, their citizens from using their own money to pay for their own basic healthcare needs and that of their family: Cuba, and North Korea. That’s a fact. I also use it to counter the mendacious liberal-left who constantly try to blow smoke up your patootie by claiming that if we don’t maintain our North Korean-style healthcare system exactly the way the liberal-left in this country has mandated, then we will thus fall victim to an “American-style healthcare system”. They say it like it would be a negative, notwithstanding that America has the best hospitals and research and doctors and medicine and nearly all the health-related inventions and equipment and on and on and on….. in the entire world. And no wait lists.
Why do I say, when talking about the left’s socialist daycare plans “…and early learning –wink! “? Because what they don’t admit to you is that they really have an interest in setting young Canadians up early in life such that they become totally reliant upon the state — rather than the family or God — for their very survival, their nurturing, their faith, their security, and their comfort. It’s the socialist thing to do so you can’t blame them for wanting to do this. What I do blame them for is not being forthcoming about their extreme liberal-left fundamentalist (or outright socialist) yearnings. Thus the “wink” I insert whenever they talk about their socialist daycare plans being an “early learning program”. The early learning is socialism.
It is a term I coined to describe Canadian television networks. This includes the state-run CBC division of the Liberal Party of course, but mostly the CTV, and also Global network, and specialty channels, all of whom I contend have been bought-off by the Liberal Party through endless sponsorships and grants and loans and such in typical Liberal Party style, in which they attempt to make the entire Canadian society — citizens and business and in particular the media — 
reliant upon them for their happy little existence; and who then feel as though they “owe” the Liberal Party. Try to spot one show or movie that’s made in Canada that DOESN’T display the “Canada/Liberal/sponsorship” logo in its credits.
Why do I always you say, “The CBC division of the Liberal Party?”
I coined that and also “The Supreme Court division of the Liberal Party” and the “Senate division of the Liberal Party” and others. Why? Because after years of the Liberals’ appointing liberals, more liberals, and nothing but liberals to run those shows, they are in fact nothing other than divisions of the Party.
Joel what the heck is “Liberal Party Too”?
Well, reader, I enter the term into this Lexicon reluctantly, following the federal budget of 2007, but I wish there was no such use for the term. And I’m still writing the definition so this is subject to revision.
It’s used primarily to describe a self-described “conservative” party — ostensibly the “Conservative Party of Canada”, which isn’t really a conservative party, but rather a different version of the Liberal Party — because alas, they are in fact a bunch of liberals. It’s a party full of liberals. Social liberals, and/or fiscal liberals and other liberals. They just want their own team called something other than The Liberal Party.
Differences between the real Liberal Party and Liberal Party Too may exist — in military and defense policy, possibly in foreign affairs policy, and perhaps also in law and order policies, and the amount of pot smoked, but little else.
I started using it several years ago as a cautionary tale in order to warn my fellow Canadians about the “Conservative” Party’s inclination (thanks to its many liberals) to adopt socially liberal policies like abortion and gay marriage and “equality” (of outcomes) and releasing criminals back into society for “rehabilitation” and “re-integration” and so on. But recently it could also be used to describe a “Conservative” Party that uses tax policy to buy favor among voters and adopting Liberal fiscal policy holus-bolus. They think they are smarter than the average Canadian, and must spend our money for us, not unlike common socialists.
Deleted entries:
[Now rendered moot, by which we mean both the lexicon entry and the man]. Why did I call him Paul (“we lead the world”) Martin? During the election campaign of 2004, he repeatedly gave answers to questions by saying that “Canada leads the world in [fill in the blank]”. Specifically, he answered that way in response to a question about Canada’s role in peacekeeping and such. His answer is a lie. Canada leads the world in practically nothing, and this is the Liberals’ attempt to paint a rosy picture of a failing Canada. They are trying to deceive you. They are lying to you.
[Now deleted from Lexicon because… who cares at this point?] Why do I call him Jean “(A proof is a proof”) Chretien? “I don’t know, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it’s because it’s proven.” …when asked what kind of proof was needed by him before being convinced to participate in the fight for freedom and democracy and for the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator, which he decided wasn’t worth bothering with in the end. Apparently, 300,000 dead innocent Iraqis — many of whom were killed by weapons of mass destruction like gas — isn’t a proof, nor are countless tens or hundreds of thousands of raped, tortured women, children, and men, nor is an entire country living in squalor and servitude under a tyrannical dictator who is an obvious threat to world peace and security.
[Now deleted from Lexicon because they seem to have dropped this relationship] Why did you start calling the National Post the “CBC/National Post News and Advertising Cooperative,” Joel?
I think they’ve denounced their BFF status on account of the fact that Justin Trudeau and his Libs decided to pay off all the media, including the NatPo, with taxpayer dollars, so bedding with the CBC as they were would seem like double-dipping (enjoy all the sexual connotations that are available here folks!). Or something like that. But it’s over. Originally it was… Because the state-owned CBC and the National Post entered into an agreement under which they would share news and advertising. In other lands, this is known quite correctly, as fascism. Again, that’s fascism. I was going to go for the word “fascist,” somewhere in that “CBC/National Post News and Advertising Cooperative,” but this is wordier, and I’m all about the wordier versions of things.
