How Democrats Are Corrupting The English Language

[P@triot]

I've literally been saying this for decades now. The left pretends like words do not matter. They pretends like what is written on a legal document really isn't written there. It's the only way for them to engage in illegal activity...

All of life is a giant 'loophole' until liberals come up with a way to regulate or tax it.

If You Don’t Give Me What I Want, You’re Stealing
Democrats can create entire issues out of corrupting words. Take “access”— formerly meaning “having the ability to approach, enter, or use.” In today’s liberal parlance, when the state doesn’t give you something for free, it’s taking something from you. It’s denying you access. When there’s a lack of “access” to birth control, it doesn’t, as the dictionary might lead you to believe, mean that Walgreens and CVS have been dissuaded from selling condoms or that someone is bolting the door when women attempt to purchase birth control at the local pharmacy. It means that government has not made condoms “free” for anyone who desires them

How Democrats Win Debates By Corrupting The English Language

 

[konradv]

What about...

partial-birth abortion,
death tax,
homicide bomber,
gun-grabber,
Obamacare...?

I've probably forgotten a few. Works both ways

 

[Pogo]

"Corrupting the English language"
"pretends like words do not matter"

Heavy irony alert.

Cloudy with a near 100% chance of Hypocrisy. Strong gutsy foul winds possible. Mudslides likely.

 

[Redfish]

What about...

partial-birth abortion,
death tax,
homicide bomber,
gun-grabber,
Obamacare...?

I've probably forgotten a few. Works both ways

those all came from democrats, what's your point?

 

[Unkotare]

I've literally been saying this for decades now. The left pretends like words do not matter. ....

Oh they know they matter. That's why they keep trying to change them, manipulate them, and weaponize them.

 

[konradv]

What about partial-birth abortion, death tax, homicide bomber, gun-grabber, Obamacare? I've probably forgotten a few. Works both ways

those all came from democrats, what's your point?

Bullshit

 

[Norman]

The regressive left in general are all about manipulating people with language. Of course redefining terms is what follows from that.

 

[The Great Goose]

I've literally been saying this for decades now. The left pretends like words do not matter. ....

Oh they know they matter. That's why they keep trying to change them, manipulate them, and weaponize them.

Stfu you bloody uitlander!

 

[Agit8r]

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

 

[P@triot]

What about...

partial-birth abortion,
death tax,
homicide bomber,
gun-grabber,
Obamacare...?

I've probably forgotten a few. Works both ways

Um....those are all words accurately used. Are you really going to try to tell me that Democrats are not "gun-grabbers". Hell, even Obama calls it "Obamacare".

That was weak. Would you like a second chance to attempt to do much better?!?

 

[P@triot]

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

 

[Unkotare]

What about partial-birth abortion, death tax, homicide bomber, gun-grabber, Obamacare? I've probably forgotten a few. Works both ways

those all came from democrats, what's your point?

Bullshit

That comes from democrats too.

 

[Agit8r]

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

 

[edthecynic]

When there’s a lack of “access” to birth control, it doesn’t, as the dictionary might lead you to believe, mean that Walgreens and CVS have been dissuaded from selling condoms or that someone is bolting the door when women attempt to purchase birth control at the local pharmacy. It means that government has not made condoms “free” for anyone who desires them

Of course, the lying scum at The Federalist know no one but the lying scum Right say that. The access to birth control was over students PAYING FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE through the school and the SCHOOL preventing the insurance company from providing birth control. Obviously the Federalist knows it had nothing to do with Walgreens or CVS or getting anything free from the government, so it is clearly the Right-wing lying scum at the Federalist who are hypocritically perverting the English language.

 

[P@triot]

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

There is no "qualification". It clearly and undeniably states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Undeniable. Indisputable. If there were a "qualification" it would say "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But it doesn't. What liberals want to do is apply the why as the what. It doesn't work that way. The what is that the American people have an unfettered right to arms (not just muskets, not just guns, arms). The why - with regards to the what - is largely irrelevant. It's good to know. It's fine to add. But it doesn't change the what.

 

[Pogo]

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

There is no "qualification". It clearly and undeniably states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Undeniable. Indisputable. If there were a "qualification" it would say "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But it doesn't. What liberals want to do is apply the why as the what. It doesn't work that way. The what is that the American people have an unfettered right to arms (not just muskets, not just guns, arms). The why - with regards to the what - is largely irrelevant. It's good to know. It's fine to add. But it doesn't change the what.

Actually there is a qualification. And no one has ever definitively figured it out.

That would be of course the part you deliberately skipped, to wit: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". That's a subordinate clause. What it's intended to mean is widely open to interpretation.

By your conscious elimination of that phrase presumably you think it means nothing.

If that's the case ----- why is it there?

Two possibilities: one, it's there to explain the basis of what follows; two, it's there to limit (qualify) what follows.

No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain itself. Nor is it in any way necessary to.
You may now grapple with what's left. Or of course.... run away.

 

[emilynghiem]

I've literally been saying this for decades now. The left pretends like words do not matter. They pretends like what is written on a legal document really isn't written there. It's the only way for them to engage in illegal activity...

All of life is a giant 'loophole' until liberals come up with a way to regulate or tax it.

If You Don’t Give Me What I Want, You’re Stealing
Democrats can create entire issues out of corrupting words. Take “access”— formerly meaning “having the ability to approach, enter, or use.” In today’s liberal parlance, when the state doesn’t give you something for free, it’s taking something from you. It’s denying you access. When there’s a lack of “access” to birth control, it doesn’t, as the dictionary might lead you to believe, mean that Walgreens and CVS have been dissuaded from selling condoms or that someone is bolting the door when women attempt to purchase birth control at the local pharmacy. It means that government has not made condoms “free” for anyone who desires them

How Democrats Win Debates By Corrupting The English Language

I thought this was going to be a thread on
redefining marriage!

Now it's sidetracked on is either side more or less guilty of twisting words for
political rhetoric and propaganda, the left or the right.

Can we talk about ALL cases and try to solve these problems?
NOT just bringing them up as "ammunition"
to SLAM left or right, and leave the problems unresolved.

Marriage is one issue.

God is another one -- the leftwing OPPONENTS of Christians and Conservatives keep assigning negative associations and meanings to God and what people have done "in the name of God"
NOT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS BUT TO JUSTIFY REMOVAL of the word God.

And then this is argued as an "attack" to undermine either the right, or the good things in American
history and government associated with God-believing people and the legacy and traditions taught in this vein.

Can we pick an issue and actually address the problems, perceived on both sides,
and not just resort to "blaming" one side or the other for their beliefs on that issue.

A. Example for Marriage, there should be a different level where personal beliefs and practices in marriage
should be allowed to be freely and equally practiced in PRIVATE, and not affect the PUBLIC/GOVT policies on "domestic contracts and partnerships" which the people agree to register with the govt, similar to registering ownership of property for tax responsibility.

How can we SEPARATE the public policy level from the private beliefs and practices level?
Do we need to separate these and only register civil contracts and partnerships with Govt.
If we cannot agree if "same sex couples" should receive benefits, could these polices be
"separate by party" so people can CHOOSE which policy they want to receive their
benefits under and pay into? Could such a party system also solve the health care and abortion debates, by separating funding for people of respective beliefs, so they don't have to be under conflicting policies that violate their beliefs?

instead of fighting over redefining marriage, why can't we separate and let people practice what they believe on their own and keep this out of govt.

 

[midcan5]

Rottweiler has this backward or is that upside down and reversed. LOL The right is so unimaginative they have been stealing from the left for many years now. But really the proof is still the pudding, and as I have asked often and never get a substantive answer, tell us all something the right wing in America has done for all Americans? No answer follows.

"The question is, why do arguments like these often have so much force? At first glance it seems odd, Even bizarre, to discount the cumulative effects of many blows, or to deny that habitat degradation constitutes a harm to individual birds, or to announce that massive patterns of societal discrimination leave minorities in the same position as everyone else, or to decide that white Timothy McVeigh talks like a militia member, walks like a militia member, thinks likes militia member and hates like a militia member, what he does has nothing to do with the militia culture .... How is the trick done? Well, first of all by a sleight of hand. The eye is deflected away from the whole -- history, culture, habitats, society and the parts, now freed from any stabilizing context, can be described in any way one likes - but why is the sleight of hand successful? Why don't more people see through it?" [Stanley Fish] How the Right Hijacked the Magic Words How the Right Hijacked the Magic Words


Thank a Liberal
Why "liberals" shun the term using "progressives" instead...

 

[Moonglow]

I've literally been saying this for decades now. The left pretends like words do not matter. They pretends like what is written on a legal document really isn't written there. It's the only way for them to engage in illegal activity...

All of life is a giant 'loophole' until liberals come up with a way to regulate or tax it.

If You Don’t Give Me What I Want, You’re Stealing
Democrats can create entire issues out of corrupting words. Take “access”— formerly meaning “having the ability to approach, enter, or use.” In today’s liberal parlance, when the state doesn’t give you something for free, it’s taking something from you. It’s denying you access. When there’s a lack of “access” to birth control, it doesn’t, as the dictionary might lead you to believe, mean that Walgreens and CVS have been dissuaded from selling condoms or that someone is bolting the door when women attempt to purchase birth control at the local pharmacy. It means that government has not made condoms “free” for anyone who desires them

How Democrats Win Debates By Corrupting The English Language

Are right wingers so dumb they need to make shit up to feel good about themselves? What a pity..

 

[Never3ndr]

I've literally been saying this for decades now. The left pretends like words do not matter.

Are you an idiot? If anything the left is hyper concerned about words mattering too much...hence the entirely out of control PC culture created on the Regressive Left.

As far as arguments about definition...there is literally an entire branch of philosophy devoted to that...it is a legitimate discussion. Just because one side doesn't agree with your viewpoint doesn't make their views illegitimate.