Language


#1

Just another example of how the left controls the language.

From Roget’s Thesaurus, here are some synonyms for “liberal”:
Enlightened, flexible, humanistic, tolerant, free, humanitarian, bountiful, exuberant, generous, cutting-edge, excellent, exceptional, foremost, leading-edge, hip, kindhearted, caring, and chivalrous. That’s just SOME.

And, from Roget’s Thesaurus, here are some synonyms for “conservative”:
Fuddy-duddy, redneck, fogyish, materialistic, fussy, religious, bigoted, drippy, humdrum, inflexible, lame, uptight, narrow-minded, square, and EXTREMIST. Again, that’s just some.

Is it any wonder, then, why our students (brought up on this crap . . . the NEA strikes again) are predominantly Bernie Sanders supporters? Is it any wonder that we’re viewed as mean-spirited, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals?

And before any of our members on the left make the CIRCULAR argument that “Roget’s is just reflecting the common usage”, how in the heck do you think JoeSixpack came to using these definitions? Could it be, perhaps, THAT WAS WHAT HE WAS TAUGHT!!!

No wonder home schooling is so popular with conservatives. No wonder Obama is trying to undermine it.

If my kids were school age (my daughter is 43 and my son is 48 . . . she graduated from Boston College, he from Villanova), I would NOT put them in the hands of public schools (they went to Catholic schools throughout).

If you control the language, you control the minds. The left controls the language.


#2

I have noticed in various words that I KNEW had different definitions years ago now are soft pedaled liberal think…


#3

The Left controls the language and culture; and is abolishing the borders.

It is, to use a favorite term of the Left…unsustainable. Which means it cannot continue.

Since we’ve been stymied by our own countrymen at every turn…there is only one choice, two options. Stand back and watch it, or partition this nation. Meaning, a strategic, organized coordination of State Secessions and a New Union of non-Leftist, non-Socialist American States.

There is no other choice left. No one, no group, can force another group to be free and to value liberty. And liberty not-valued will be thrown away for promises of comfort, care and protection from responsibility.


#4

Every four years, the secession talk crops up. It’s not possible. States are not able to succeed. I would think the Civil War pretty well established that(to what extent the Nullification Crisis hadn’t already done so).

And that was in an age that predated nuclear weapons. How exactly do you think that issue is going to be handled?


#5

That’s what those who resisted the Patriots for American Independence said, also.

Read my post again. I did not say every state would go it alone. Every state will have to decide to cut the ties with Washington and its tyranny; but they could and should form an alternate union. Based on the Constitution AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.


#6

Samuel Adams:

***“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ***


#7

Somewhere along the way, the word liberal was stolen by lefty progressives. It’s too bad. Now they’re trying to escape it because it’s become such an epithet and going back to progressive. Of course, I think progressivism had a terrible history and also coopted a perfectly good word.

Probably not :wink:

Also, I’m a big fan of breaking up the entire country into its constituent counties and parishes.


#8

Decades of institutional propaganda - schools, media - have taken DEEP root.

The fact that a Hillary Clinton could ever be considered for the presidency by the people of this country - apparently a majority of the people - demonstrates without any doubt we have “crossed the Rubicon”.

Hillary Clinton’s election, with continued open borders being a Democrat Party recruitment strategy along with a continuation of stacking the federal courts with progressive jurists, will make it impossible to change the nation’s trajectory.

That’s how I see it.


#9

Yes, and they had to fight and win a war to prove it out. Do you plan to fight another American Civil War?

And how will nuclear ownership be handled? Will the succeeding states just hand all of them over? Or do you think Washington will allow states in open rebellion to just have a huge portion of the United States nuclear arsenal? This is a very important question you need to answer.


#10

There will only be war if Washington pushes it. Right now they’ve turned what WAS the most effective military in the world, into a giant Skinner Box. Who’s in there now is not in there to defend liberty - they’re in there for Free Sh__. They’re in there because they’re twisted sodomites and uniforms give them a stiffy; and the idea of a hundred naked buff soldiers in the latrine, taking off uniforms, is their wildest fantasy.

They are not going to fight to keep others enslaved. Certainly not what may well be their neighbors, their friends, from towns they came from. They don’t want to fight ANYWAY.

On the other side will be motivated patriots who made a bold move and now stand to fight to enforce it. It will be the productive - free citizens who believe in America, from tax-PRODUCING States, in areas where there IS business and resources of which Washington prevents utilization.

It will NOT be the Confederate States. That was a small group of spoiled Planters with no industry trying to enforce a moral aberration. Even the non-planter poor-whites who fought, knew that.

It is not for me to decide. That will have to be worked out, and with force or the threat of force.

Should questions about the USSR’s nuclear arsenal, prevented those dissatisfied regions from breaking free? Stay in bondage to keep the captors in control of nuclear arms? Is that not madness?


#11

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess you’ve never served and know very few(if any) people who have.


#12

> “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, — the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.”
>
> ~ Thomas Jefferson

Often shorten to: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”


#13

My favorite argument is the “fascism” used by “liberals” to silence conservatives.

However if you Google “fascism”, you get;

> fas·cism/ˈfaSHˌizəm/
>
> noun
>
> an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
>
> synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy;
> nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism;
>
> •(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
>
>

Google invites suggestions, I emailed my opinion that “fascism” is really employed by “liberals”… no response.


#14

Wrong. Navy vet; Persian Gulf on a Nimitz-class carrier.

I not only had to deal with the fruitilicious boyos; one of them, who also basically gave me an invite in the 50-stall showers…accused a younger friend of mine, an E-3, of raping him.

It was fraudulent, of course. Forensic data failed to prove evidence of anything but the boyo’s own semen. But the Navy doesn’t like to be proven wrong; and it was only when the kid cracked on the stand in depositions two days before the court-martial, did he recount.

No. They are disruptive; they are an impediment to the mission; and they are now ALL OVER.

A citizen militia under direction of the State authorities will not have that problem.


#15

[MENTION=366]CWolf[/MENTION]

Curious. Why did you say that?


#16

My entire family is military. Not only do they in no way resemble what JustPassinThrough described, neither did any of their friends. They still see it as a brotherhood and developed their strongest bonds with their fellow marines.

I’m genuinely shocked to see an actual veteran disparage his brothers like that. I’ve literally never seen or heard something like that from anyone in person, and only rarely seen that type of internet talk come from liberal veterans(not the specific complaint about homosexuality, but a general disdain for their fellow enlistees). This is a first from a conservative from any medium.


#17

What, you think all veterans and all enlisted personnel are saints?

What fantasy land do you come from? I was a Personnelman for half my tour (the other half I was working as a Military Journalist). I did AdSeps for persons who had crossed the line. Everything from drug offenses to AWOL charges to UCMJ and even civilian criminal charges. Some were of dubious nature, like one young man who would get drunk in the Enlisted Club, and, not fight, but throw out racial epithets towards blacks, Latinos, Filipinos. Of which in California there were many, both enlisted and civilian employees.

He got AdSepped.

My friend was on the verge of going to the brig for that charge, before the kid cracked. I was already out at that point, but I expect since he embarrassed the Navy it would not go well for him. My friend had his discharge administratively delayed, until the day military charges were dropped. He ran like hell - I know; I took a few days off work to get him the fark out of Dodge.

The Marines are a tighter bunch, as they are smaller; more cohesive, and all of them are soldiers first and foremost. But there’s trouble in their ranks, time to time, also.

Each service has its flavor. We used to call the Air Force, “college.” The ground-pounders looked askance at us with our swabs and our white Dixie Cup hats. One favorite saying of ours, regarding Army Airborne, was that only fools would jump out of a perfectly-good airplane…


#18

No, but I don’t think the majority of them are like you just described.
They all have their own problems with individual people(especially on the civilian administrative side). They also tend to feel that the brass is corrupt. But the guys they were deployed with? Yeah, they hold them in high regard in general. They don’t love them all, but there’s not a sense of general animosity.


#19

Drawing a sweeping conclusion from your family’s experience (IOW, judging that a handfull is representative of hundreds of thousands) does not stand well against JPT’s ACTUAL experience with a LOT more.

Not questioning your family’s experience, just saying that it may not be as representative as JPT’s.

Given the basis for your conclusion versus the basis for JPT’s conclusion, my money would be on JPT.

(BTW, I was a jarhead . . . USMC . . . but I served in the early 60’s, and things were a lot different then. That’s why I can’t offer my own experience as an example. JPT . . . and some others on here . . . have the experience with the “modern” military. I don’t.)


#20

Good grief. The military is like anywhere else; you have good guys and bad guys. I knew many in my Navy days in the '80s who were any number of butt-whippings shy of manhood.