What Liberals Say vs What they Mean

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

What Liberals Say vs What they Mean

Written By : Warner Todd Huston

Many of us have been raised to think that words mean things. Then there’s Democrats. From those infamous phrases like “It depends on what the definition of what ‘is’ is” of yore to the newfangled “man-caused disasters” of today, Democrats have so abused the English language as to make it completely unrecognizable to Mr. Johnson.

Certainly Democrats always upend the English language and warp it to fit their worldview, especially when they are trying to seem like innocents while trying to gain supporters. Perfect examples of this can be seen in Barack Hussein Obama’s turning the war against terror into “Overseas Contingency Operations” and Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano’s new “man-caused disasters” tag line to replace that harsh sounding “terrorist attack” that we used to use in the olden days. These softer sounding phrases are meant to convince people that they are serious, yet compassionate. Sadly, they just make us look foolish.

Even the Democratic Congress gets into the action. For instance, in an Orwellian effort to name bills with nice sounding monikers they’ve chosen names that really say the exact opposite of what the bill will do. This is meant to fool people into supporting the bills. There’s the “Employee Free Choice Act,” a bill that actually takes away worker’s choice, the “Uniting American Families Act” that doesn’t unite American families but brings foreign spouses into the U.S., and then there’s the “Freedom of Choice Act” which apparently makes it harder for a woman, not to mention her fetus, to chose life. These bills have names that mislead but are an excellent example of warping language.

For a long time when trying to gain converts liberals have commonly used words that actually say the precise opposite of what they, the liberals, mean with their actual policies. It all just shows that it is no mistake that the first four letters of “liberal” contains the letters L,I, and E.

Here are a few words and phrases that liberals use all the time that are conundrums in as much as the words themselves actually say just the opposite of what liberals mean by them.

“You should be open minded.” This means you should agree with liberals and be closed to everything else.

“Pro-choice.” In actuality this means being against the ability of a woman to chose to keep her child. It also means being against the choice of life for the infants.

“We are patriotic, too.” This actually means “we love the dreamy-dream of what we want America to be but we don’t love what she is.”

“We love American democracy.” This means “we love the fact that we can subvert America at every level, especially by implementing vote fraud.”

“Democrats are for the little guy.” If that little guy is a millionaire, then I guess they are for the little guy. Other wise, not so much.

“Freedom fighter.” To a liberal a freedom fighter is anyone that would fight against the U.S.A. You know, like the Taliban, al Qaieda, folks like that.

“Freedom of speech.” To a liberal, free speech means that they should be allowed to say everything. On the other hand, if you are a conservative YOU shouldn’t be allowed to say anything. You should shut up because YOU are dangerous.

“Separation of church and state.” To liberals this means the elimination of church, not merely the separation of religion from government.

“Rule of law.” To a liberal, rule of law is not a fixed thing. It is a capricious, instantly changing amalgam of temporary and convenient rules meant to give cover to their every momentary whim and situational ethic.

“Bipartisan.” Give up your own ideas and agree with them and you are indulging their perfect idea of bipartisanship.

Well, certainly there are a lot of others that I have not touched upon here. But, you get the idea. The sad fact is that when you hear a liberal speak when they are trying to convince others to join them, they are often speaking in terms that contradict their real meaning.

In the end, the warping of language and lies that liberals foist upon the public in order to win the policy debate finds echos in the Muslim concept of taqiyah — that sanctioned concept of lying to outsiders in order to win converts or lead to Islam becoming supreme. I suppose then that it is no wonder that the left warms so easily to radical Islam. They share certain traits, don’t they? It’s a birds-of-a-feather situation, indeed.

StanW

Your definition of “BiPartisanship” needs some work, Mr. Huston. If I may…

The Republican definition of bipartisanship does not change, regardless of who is in office. It always means “working together across party lines to solve an issue.”

The Democrat definition depends entirely upon which party is in power.

•If Republicans are in power, bipartisanship means 'Give us an equal share of power that we were unable to earn at the ballot box, because we tell you that you should.'

•If Democrats are in power, the definition of bipartisan changes to 'Shut up and sit down. We won and we'll do whatever we want to. You should be happy we even let you stay in the room.'

•ADDENDUM: If Democrats are in power and their agenda is roundly rejected by the voters, the definition of bipartisanship will become (for a short period of time) “Come on over to our side of the issue. We'll give you a few meaningless concessions and put your names on the bill, then blame you for the entire thing when the voting public actually gets to see and experience what this legislation is really all about.”

No, there is no need to thank me! ;)
UFKA_Smithwick

I'd add “dissent”.

Def: the highest form of patriotism while republicans are in charge.
also the worst kind of treason/racism/bigotry when the democrats are in power.
Guess

Oh cool a rashly generalized post meant to entice a conflict… Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Mr. EMT

Oh cool, a moron posting the sum of all of his intelligence.
UFKA_Smithwick

A troll accusing someone else of enticing conflict.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Oh cool another liberal offended by mere words meant to express an idea he doesn't agree with and afraid of possible conflict or true debate.
Lee

Oh cool, a vague response making generalized statements that have nothing to do with the subject in question and have zero evidence.

Mr. EMT

Hit the nail pretty much dead on…but not hard enough.

“We are patriotic, too.” This actually means “we love the dreamy-dream of what we want America to be but we don't love what she is.”

Sure that is what they say… but not what they mean.
There is no period in history that a liberal would be happy with, and few we would be as well.
But when we say “best era in America's history” which period would you choose? Perhaps post WWII when America was booming for a while leading up to Korea?
Yeah they would love that, aside from the segrigation issues they were fighting to keep in place, and GOP was trying to remove. Prayer and pledge were required in schools. The Ten Commandments were posted in every public and government building including schools and court houses and city halls. Gas was a whopping 10 cents a gallon due to the fact no one had conceived of the idea of capping our domestic wells and importing our oil from our enemies. A house was almost as easy to afford as a new car that could be purchased for a couple hundred bucks. A family could be provided for by one working family member. Welfare programs? Taxes?

Now, a democrat would not be able to tolerate any of that.
A conservative? Well, back to reality.

mightysamurai

Not to mention the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

Mr. EMT

My grandad still has a JC penny deer rifle (remington .243 i think, or 30.06) he got from a mail order catalog.

KillWhitePeople

What Conservatives are really saying:

“We need to strengthen our security and international presence” – God I hate Brown People

“We need to enforce our immigration laws and build a border fence” – God I hate Brown People

“Our government needs to cut spending” – BRRRROOOWWWNNNN PPPEEEEOOOPPPLLLEEEE

“Dr. Laura is a champion of the 1st Amendment” – RUHUHFUIS BBBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWNNNNNNNSSSSSSSS
Lee

Liberal definition of racist: anyone who disagrees with them on issues of national security, immigration, government spending, etc.

Bonus: Which party opposed the Civil Rights Act?

Answer: Democrats.
Mr. EMT

Right because it is totally unrelated that murder and violent crime and drugs have escalated along the border due to illegal aliens.
Only reason to want to enforce our counties laws is due to racism = Libtard logic.
Trench_Raider

Anti-white racism and trolling flagged.

Can we get something done about this scumbag and his extremely offensive user name, please?

TR
President Friedman

Spent 4 hours in a car with a good friend last weekend, who is very liberal. We mostly avoided politics, but did drift into one converstion about food production that went something like this:

Him: “I was thinking the other day that there is no good reason I should be able to go to Wal-Mart and buy a watermelon in the middle of January. Watermelons are summer/fall fruit. These unnatural eating habits are what we need to get away from as a society.”

Me: “Well, nobody forces you to go buy a watermelon at Wal-Mart, ever.”

Him: “I know, but what I'm saying if if there is no need for Watermelons in January, maybe people shouldn't be allowed to mass produce them.”

Me: “Look, if one person wants a watermelon in January and is willing to pay another person to grow it for them, you're gonna have to come up with a much better reason than “it's not needed” if you want to convinve me the government should have anything to do with that transaction.”

Him: “Well, let's say they have to cut down rainforests to grow that watermelon.”

Me: “Do they cut down rainforests to grow watermelons?”

Him: “It's a hypothetical.”

Me: “Well since we dont' have any rainforests in the USA, now you're talking about having our government go into a trade war or a real war with another country to prevent them from growing watermelons. That seems like an excessive means to a nonproductive end to me.”

Him: “No, you're taking it way out of proportion. I'm not talking about use of force.”

Me: “How does the government prevent people from growing, buying, and selling watermelons without the threat of force?”

Him: “Your view of the government is just whacked.”

Me: “Hey, you are the one who wants to make it illegal to buy watermelons in January.”

Him: “That was just a hypothetical.”

Me: “…”

Me: “Hey, listen to this song. It's awesome.”

StanW

What was the song? ;)

If you need a career-change, writer for a sit-com may work!

President Friedman

I actually remember what song it was: Steve Earle, South Nashville Blues. I'm sure Steve Earle is for banning the sale of watermelons in January as well. I don't know why my favorite musicians are all communists!

StanW

Nice.

And musicians should stick to MUSIC and stay out of politics.

baoxian

And it all began with meaningless Algore eco-babble. You should have asked him if he'd prefer eating nothing but stockpiled grain and whatever animal he can kill for the duration of the winter like all of humanity has done throughout history except for the modern world in the last 100 years or so.

Because hunting a rabbit in a snowstorm while you're starving is way better than eating a watermelon, I'm sure.

Proud Infidel

Aah Yes, Al Gore Jr. the eco-hypocrite who had Chilean Sea Bass (listed as a threatened species) served at his daughter's wedding reception.

UFKA_Smithwick

They have a different mentality.

If something isn't mandatory it should be forbidden.

Leaving it up to individuals means those people may choose to do something differently than the way liberals want it done. And as liberals are all knowing and always choose the best path that means those folks would make a mistake. So it is in fact compassionate to force them in to actions (or prevent actions) based on the lefts opinion on how things ought to be done.

You do see it somewhat on the right as well particularly with those who would force religious beliefs on everyone else, but it is fairly rare and non-representative. Whereas amongst the left it is standard doctrine.

mightysamurai

If something isn't mandatory it should be forbidden.

And even then, their definition of “mandatory” is quite fluid.

Alcohol? Not mandatory. But try asking a liberal if he'd support banning that.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Epic fail! Complete mischaracterization of anything Conservatives stand for or believe by calling it all racism.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Racist: Anyone winning an argument with a liberal. (Hat tip Stan)
Martha

If this were true, there would be no racists.
Good Ol Boy

Excellent analysis, Mr. Huston!

I see some of the posters have added a few popular terms that omitted, let me add one:

Freedom of Press. To libs it means printing unvetted, often slanderous, rumors about Conservative officials/spokespeople, and even in some cases leaking top secret information that damages a Republican Administration. While simultaneously calling for any Conservative media outlet to be banned/shutdown by the government for spreading “hate speech”.
UFKA_Smithwick

You may want to rethink the whole “labeling others racist while demanding all white people be killed” thing.
mightysamurai

Here's one of my favorites:

“Stop trying to legislate morality!” What they really mean is “Stop trying to write laws I disagree with!”
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Says someone who has never won an argument, and cried racist!!!

Mr. EMT

That sound we all heard was martha smacking his forhead with his palm… again.

mightysamurai

Are you done with your little temper-tantrum now?
Living_Right_In_CA

“Fair Share” taxing someone until they only retain income equal to the median for the country.
http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

I think my favourite example of this phenomenon is the Employee Free Choice Act. Sounds wonderful doesn't it? Who wouldn't be for giving employees free choices? Freedom is good. Choice is good. A law guaranteeing free choices just has to be good, right?

Except EFCA deprives each and every worker in America the choice to vote on union representation via secret ballot. It opens the door to representation elections dominated by large, heavy-set men with menacing stares who furtively scribble notes about who voted against the union. It's the antithesis of free choice.

This is clearly the king of liberal double-speak. Or should I just go ahead and call it what it really is – newspeak.

mightysamurai

Liberals love doing that.

See the “Clean Air Act”, the “Community Reinvestment Act”, and of course the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (aka the “Stimulus”).

Who could possibly be against those things? Clearly anyone who opposes any of those bills must in favor of pollution, poverty, and economic depression! Those monsters!

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

But the PATRIOT Act was the epitome of evil, because it was Bush's and implied love of country!!!

UFKA_Smithwick

The problem they have with “free choice” is that people often choose things counter to what the left wants them to choose.

As the left knows best it is then proper to coerce them in to “choosing” correctly.

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time

Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married

Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies

The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN