New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
The left understands the power of words much more than the right. When it comes to manipulating language and redefining words we on the right are babes-in-the-woods.


Not only most of us (even high level politicians who should know better) don’t know how to use those tactics, many don’t recognize what the left is doing and end up using the redefined words the way the left intends, and thus losing the argument before it even starts.


I found this list of the more common words that the left has surreptitiously redefined. Here is the Orwellian list, together with what the left means by them (but won’t admit to it or reveal):


- access - you pay for something I want (birth control, abortions, housing, health care....)
- justice (social, environmental, economic, gender, reproductive, etc) - a form of socialist shakedown
- affordable (housing or anything else) - subsidized
- revenue enhancer - tax increase
- investment - a new goverment program to justify a tax increase
- sustainability - politburo type of planning
- cautionary principle - don’t get out of bed
- government expense - a tax cut
- right - something that I want that you should pay for
- bipartisanship - repubs sign up for the dems agenda
- community - pressure group
- diversity - backdoor quota
- smart growth - bureaucratic planning
- inclusive - a way to force you to associate with those you don’t want
- moral hazard - putting up with something you know up front is irresponsible
- “give back” to the community - extortion, shakedown
- hate speech - saying something they disagree with
- offended - my “rights” supersede yours
- racist - you disagree with someone’s values
- tolerance - forced acceptance, exaltation, reverence, privilege, affirmation, celebration of something you abhor
- affirmative action - quotas, reverse discrimination
- fairness - equality of results
- divisive - repubs disagree with the left on social policies
- Marriage - any two or more entities that decide they want the state to call them “married” for kicks or whatever other purpose. (Of course redefining “marriage”, redefines all human relations, ie, husband, wife, aunt, uncle, sister, brother, etc, etc.)
- Family - any conglomeration of people, animals, things that associate with each other at some level
- ending the war - retreat
- and so on...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,902 Posts
"Doublespeak"; aka bull**** or in NY SSDD. Orwell had it right.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
- Marriage - any two or more entities that decide they want the state to call them “married” for kicks or whatever other purpose. (Of course redefining “marriage”, redefines all human relations, ie, husband, wife, aunt, uncle, sister, brother, etc, etc.)

In what way exactly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,953 Posts
"Common sense" refers to whatever is on the tyrant's (which may include multiple masters) current agenda and needs to be heedlessly followed and obeyed by the sheep eg "common sense gun control"...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,768 Posts
Loving this modern day "Devil's Dictionary" thread! Here's a few:

"Assault Weapon": Any gun that I don't like because it looks kind of scary. Also it's black. But I'm not racist, I swear!
"For the Children": For Me and my homies. **** the children.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
- Marriage - any two or more entities that decide they want the state to call them "married" for kicks or whatever other purpose. (Of course redefining "marriage", redefines all human relations, ie, husband, wife, aunt, uncle, sister, brother, etc, etc.)

In what way exactly?
Wouldn't stand to reason if you call someone your spouse the definition of "in laws" of any kind would also change. BTW I have no issue with same sex unions of any combination just saying in does redefine the larger family as well.

I personally think that the government shouldn't be involved in "marriage" at all. whatever the sex of those involved
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
That is beautiful OCNYBob!! I saved it with your name on it.
Respects, Pedro.
Thanks but I didn't create it, I found it on a blog and thought I would share.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
Wouldn't stand to reason if you call someone your spouse the definition of "in laws" of any kind would also change. BTW I have no issue with same sex unions of any combination just saying in does redefine the larger family as well.

I personally think that the government shouldn't be involved in "marriage" at all. whatever the sex of those involved
I agree that the state has no part in marriage. I just don't understand how broadening marriage as we know it to as to allow all consenting parties to participate would make your son your aunt or something. xD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,835 Posts
"Reasonable Restrictions" = I'll decide for you what you do or don't need. Constitution be damned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
901 Posts
Budget Cut : We'll spend as much as we want on an program but tell you we wanted twice what we got but settled for half of what we asked for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,486 Posts
I agree that the state has no part in marriage. I just don't understand how broadening marriage as we know it to as to allow all consenting parties to participate would make your son your aunt or something. xD
Yeah, that makes absolutely no sense. I also like the part where it insinuates that only straight people have legitimate reasons for getting married, while everyone else just does it "for kicks."

Just another case of Christian > American
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top