ATTACK PARODY I might add!!
they can't defend against ti!!
NOW lets Join he Great Leader and Evangelist in a rousing chorus or "I..I...I....I"
This Message Not Approved by the NSA
Posted on 07/25/2013 10:41:16 AM PDT by neverdem
In her book Statecraft, the late, great British prime minister Margaret Thatcher wrote: “Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited.”
The Iron Lady was absolutely right, yet again.
America’s Democratic Left craftily swaps the words associated with its policies. As public opinion or the facts start to escape them, presto! Their speeches, articles, and TV appearances employ new language. Leftists leave inconvenient lingo behind, like a snake’s abandoned skin languishing between desert rocks. Inexplicably, though, the Republican Right usually adopts the Left’s new parlance. This inadvertently advances the collectivist cause.
For instance, Leftists understand that the word “liberal” telegraphs bloated, intrusive government at home; a blame-America-first posture overseas; and social programs propelled by victimology. Defining candidates as liberals often assures their defeat.
So a few years ago, liberals started to call themselves “progressives.”
Ah, much better! Everyone loves progress.
One cannot blame the Left for this linguistic sleight-of-hand. After all, they like to win elections, too. What is maddening is that conservative advocates unwittingly aid liberals in this rhetorical jailbreak. Too many officeholders and pundits on the right chomped into the Left’s bait and began calling them progressives.
This habit is totally counterproductive.
If a bank robber wants to avoid capture, do not help him remove the outfit he wore to the heist. Likewise, conservatives immediately should stop calling Leftists “progressives.” If statists spurn the liberal label, staple it to their lapels.
Likewise, since data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites confirm that Earth’s average temperature stopped rising in 1997, liberals quit banging the “global warming” drum. Instead, they ring the “climate change” bell. This has the priceless advantage of encompassing all unusual weather. Three feet of snow in upstate New York over Memorial Day weekend? While this hardly sounds like “global warming,” liberals dub it “climate change” and argue for shuttering the coal industry — its 91,000 workers be damned(PDF).
Again, too many on the right unthinkingly help discredited global warmers like Obama by parroting the Left’s “climate change” terminology. Conservatives should drop “climate change.” Instead, they should challenge so-called global warming. Make environmentalists prove their previous contention — that Earth is warming, despite contradictory satellite observations, and not just changing its climate, as this planet does constantly, regardless of human activity.
Democrats these days rarely defend food stamps. There is something drably welfare-statist about that moniker. Instead, Obama and his fans now swoon for “SNAP.” The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is exactly the same thing. However, SNAP sounds fun, light, and breezy — like snapping one’s fingers. Here, too, Republicans now debate SNAP. Stop that! America’s food stamp population has ballooned 47.5 percent under Obama, from 32.2 million in January 2009 to 47.5 million last April. A snappy new name only makes food stamps more appealing and tougher to curb.
Obama lately has promised to take “executive action” to “get around Congress,” when that pesky old legislative branch foolishly obstructs his enlightened agenda. Executive action is good. It trumps stasis. At least Obama is doing something. Of course, an executive action is nothing other than an executive order. Yuck! Orders sound bossy and perhaps a touch authoritarian — like decrees. So, conservatives should avoid “executive action” and, instead, greet skeptically any and every “executive order” that Obama contemplates.
Likewise, Rightists should address Obamacare, rather than the slowly disintegrating punchline called the “Affordable Care Act.”
It’s still “gun control,” especially when liberals sponsor “gun-safety legislation.”
Carbon dioxide helps plants thrive, as we humans exhale it. So, instead of attacking CO2, Obama now derides “carbon pollution.” This cleverly connotes charcoal dust falling from the skies.
And Obama’s spendaholism remains a national crisis, even though he praises “investment.”
So, when progressives oppose climate change and seek more investment in SNAP, Reaganites should reject such jargon. Instead, remind Americans that these are just liberals screaming about global warming and demanding more government spending on food stamps.
— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.
The person who gets to define the meaning of the words and phrases being used gets to determine the outcome of the debate.
One I never understood is the replacement of personnel with “human resources”. I don’t see how it benefits anyone and requires two words instead of one.
I guess it does sound “progressive” tho.
Problem is, the commie pinkos OWN the gateways for this terminology - Media and Academia. They can mangle the language however they want, and their co-conspirators will push it right out.
Nothing illustrates this better than the colors red and blue. Leftists/progressives are red (except when they are green... and they are still red inside). Then, sometime in the last decade or two, the enemedia just decided to re-brand ‘red’ to mean republicans.
One I never understood is the replacement of personnel with “human resources”.
In theory, it makes the job sound more important; in actuality, it's puffery closely akin to "sanitary engineer" for "janitor."
Whenever someone lables a homosexual as gay?
I correct them. Nothing gay about that sick lifestyle. Those people are queers, not gays.
I have noticed that one too. The left always was associated with red then all of a sudden it became red states and blue states with blue representing the left.
No doubt in my mind that it was a deliberate decision by whoever started it.
Can't be done.
One can however argue with the positions Liberal hold to convince a person sitting on the fence. In that case, I would suggest using logical, empirical reasoning, and facts.
Another one which was changed for no apparent reason to me is I used to be a recreation major and it was in the dept. of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. I even have a shirt with HPER on it.
Now it is Health and Human Performance which is pretty much meaningless.
Blacks can’t be “African American”.
They asked us to call them “Black” in the 1970s. No problem.
Don’t ask me to change what I call you twice in one lifetime because you left a stink on the last name you chose.
“Gun Control” is really “Opposing the Bill of Rights”
Get aggressive. It’s accurate.
Actually, they started off calling themselves Progressives back in the last decades of the 18th century and into the first three decades of the 20th century.
After Prohibition failed,as a way of escaping the derision they were starting to face, the "progressives" started to call themselves "liberals" in an attempt to steal the affection association Americans had for that terms as a result of it's being originally applied to the nation's founders and their intellectual and patriotic descendants.
Of course, the descendants of the founders helped in that name change by calling themselves "conservatives" and thus ceding the "liberal" title to the progressives.
But after the new Liberals lost their favor in the last decades of the 20th century, they reverted back to the original "progressive" label.
Actually, it was always red for the controlling party and blue for the minority party. That changed when the media started controlling our elections rather than reporting on them. Couldn’t associate the Left with Red, since that is the color of their true faith, Communism.
Never been able to get a liberal to follow a logical argument. Not only do they not have the ability to think logically, but those that can see where you’re leading them and jump off the track on purpose.
As far as the twisting of the language, they’ve been doing it ever since the serpent said “did God really say...”
bump
Deroy is mistaken, I think, in the idea that the Republican Party is not part of the Democrat Party.
and every single media outlet followed the script
Conservatives don’t fall for this...Republicans do. Especially RINO Washington types.
No, keep calling them "Progressives".
And remind people that the Progressive movement of the early 20th century, which PIAPS recalls fondly, brought us Income Tax and Prohibition.
“Gun Control” is really “Victim Disarmament”.
I posted a vanity thread recently for this very reason and titled it: Talking Points. If the Repubs would just get with the language thing and follow my script...never mind, herding cats.
The very word “socialism” has been redefined so that they can deny what they are. It used to mean any economic system advocating control by government — by whatever method — (i.e. regulation [social democrat], majority ownership [Fascism] or total ownership [Marxism]). All the online dictionaries now define it the same as Marxism.
I agree with Mark Levin - just call them “Statists”.
Heheh...Liberals are snake bit! End of story!
And Liberals know it full well.
Liberals first line of defense is emotion...the fall back position is specious reasoning.
New tag line alert!
Those people are disease-ridden boy-rapists not gays.
Don't forget "AfroAmericans".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
