Political Discussions
LIberal to English Translation
Posted by anticsrocks • 5/21/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: language, liberal bias, media bias
The liberals have been so successful the last few years because of a number of reasons. The liberal media is in their back pocket for one, and have been a very useful tool for the liberal. The liberal media has even adopted the language of the liberal. For example, it’s not raising taxes, it’s “investing.” It’s not abortion, it’s “choice.” They’re not illegal aliens, they are “undocumented immigrants.” For you see, to make their far left agenda more palatable to the average American, they have to do this. And they have to do this because their far left agenda is so radical.
To combat the liberal we need to understand his language, so it is to this end that I have compiled a partial list of liberal to English translation. It is, of course only a partial list because liberalese, like any language, is constantly being changed and updated.
“The constitution is a living document.” = A fundamentally flawed document (Obama said this in a radio interview in 2001)
“Deficit Reduction” = Tax Hike
“Religious right” = Christians who are conservative
“Bipartisanship” = When Republicans vote for liberal policies, also Arlen Specter
“Intolerance” = Opposed to liberal agenda
“Propaganda” = Conservative point of view
“Assault Weapons” = Virtually any firearm
“Cut” = Reduction in the rate of growth
“Pandering” = What Republicans do when supporting something liberals don’t like, usually applies to the NRA or religious right
“Profiteering” = Any corporation that is not in the red
“Managed competition” = Government takeover
“Overheated economy” = Prosperity
“Fully fund” = Blank check
“Diversity” = Multiple groups that adhere to the liberal agenda
“Special interest groups” = Non-liberal groups
“Fundamentalist” = Conservative
“Greed” = Profit motive
“Multiculturalism” = When placed in context to other countries, it means that America is to blame for all that is wrong in the world and that the USA is only one country among many, NOT the leading nation in the world
“Choice”= Abortion - not to be confused with the choice of personal liberty, THAT is not allowed under the liberal system
“Oversight” = Government
“Working Americans” = Only lower and middle class Americans
“Conduct a review” = Strategic delay
“Insurgents” = Terrorists
“Rigid Ideologue” = A conservative that stands up for his beliefs
“Compromise” = Only comes about when people agree with liberal agenda
“Affirmative Action” = Racial Preferences
“Lies” = “Policy Differences”
“Patriotism” = Paying more and more taxes is often equated with being a patriot
“Racism” = Open criticism of the Obama administration. i.e. Jeanane Garbageflow’s comments on the tea party protesters
“Closed-minded” = Does not agree with liberal agenda
“Right wing extremist” = The GOP
“Social responsibility” = Redistribution of wealth
“Corporate welfare” = Gross revenue minus taxes
“Corporate subsidy” = See ‘corporate welfare’
“Deserving poor” = People who vote for liberals
“Tax the rich” = Increase taxes on anyone making $150,000 a year or higher
“Freedom Fighters” = Terrorists, Somalia Pirates
“Decriminalization” = Legalization
“Regulate” = Ban
User Comments
-
Oooooo, you're gonna get it from Sati!!! :-) HAAA -
Be afraid, antics! Be very afraid!
-
You know Sati, you're a pretty good guy when you don't talk politics.
-
-
I should note that the Democrats aren't the only ones who participate in what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The End of Truth"
For instance, here are some Republican to English definitions (some of which have been uptaken by "New Democrats"
"Privatizing Social Security" = Joint stock ownership of production by the workers
"Freedom Fighter" = Terrorist that is fighting a leftist regime... even if some of their leaders orchestrate the flying of planes into the World Trade Center.
"Free Market/Deregulation" = Anarcho-Capitalism, free from the power of charter over incorporated entities as Adam Smith had envisioned in his treatise on Laissez Faire: "The Wealth of Nations"
"Jobs Creation" = Subsidy/anticompetitive subversion
"Patriot Act" = Orwellian police-statism
"Constitutional originalist" = one who wants the constitution to work as the old English Constitution that it mimics
"Long War"/"War on Terror" = Orwellian perpetual war
"Faith based initiatives" = further breaching the "wall of separation between church and state"-
News media has a left-wing bias = They're reporting the facts instead of the right-wing spin on the facts.
-
Supreme court justices who legislate from the bench = Justices who don't want to ban abortion
-
Agit8r, I generally concur with the things you say. But I must ask you, do you not think there is a War on Terror? Do you not think the terrorists have been waging war on the US for the last ten years, at least?
-
-
[“The constitution is a living document.” = A fundamentally flawed document (Obama said this in a radio interview in 2001)]
Prove it. I demand a transcript if not a live recording.-
I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92 Oct 1, 2006
Of course, equating that with saying it's a flawed document is pretty far fetched. -
"As the Federal Constitution is a copy, though not quite so base as the original, of the form of the British Government, an imitation of its vices was naturally to be expected. So intimate is the connection between form and practice, that to adopt the one is to invite the other. Imitation is naturally progressive and is rapidly so in matters that are vicious."
OH... WOOPS... that was Thomas Paine (the guy whose impersonator was standing in front of a giant replica of the Constitution in that viral teabagging video) -
Ask and ye shall receive
"...generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties..."
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79225
www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_constitution/2008/10/27/144675.html
www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
And here is a 4 plus minute clip of that interview...
theconservativepost.com/WordPress/?p=773 -
Redistribution of wealth, what a bunch of crap.
-
If you look at the Constitution as a "living breathing document" then that leaves it open to being changed at whatever the current majority of the court might be. Then you have nothing to pass on to the next generation. How could anyone in their right mind know what to expect when it keeps changing?
When you were a child, if your parents changed the rules on you every couple weeks or so, how could you respect their rules? Some things need to remain constant and the judges should base decisions on a constant interpretation of the Constitution. -
["...generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties..."]
Where's the fucking context?
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."
That's what Obama said. Quote mining is lame and overdone.
Let's look at the context even closer.
"It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you."
I do believe you have FAILED, good sir. -
Negative Liberties is constraint upon power over the individual. Positive Liberty is empowering the individual to do things. True Socialists generally believe in Positive Liberty being prevelent over Negative Liberty.
-
I'm not Anok.
[What Obama is saying is that he doesn't like the US Constitution because it promotes personal liberty too much.]
No, you're an idiot. The Warren Court promoted personal liberty (see: applying the Bill of Rights to states) and he's saying that he doesn't think it was entirely racial. After all, that court afforded atheists some tolerance (removing mandatory prayer and all). Also, you're still removing important context.
"It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."
He elaborated. Always include the elaboration.
[Straight out of Sol Alinsky's teachings.]
Citation needed.
[Obama wants to change the political landscape of America so bad that it shows in everything he does.]
Not necessarily a bad thing. I think the way things have been run for a while has shown that it DOES NOT WORK. Can you blame the man for desiring a functional government?
[America was not founded on the idea that the government had/has the right to determine that you make too much, so give some to that guy over there.]
Since when did Obama say that? And no, don't respond with an out-of-context statement that vaguely sounds like it could mean that if you looked at it a specific way and equivocated on almost every single word in the sentence.
Obama removed the Bush tax cuts on the rich fucks. Big deal. He hasn't raised any taxes yet, and I don't think he intends to. Completely obliterating all tax shelters is a more ethical solution that still gives the government money to fund its projects.
(By the way, I didn't type up that transcript excerpt. There are several grammatical/spelling errors.) -
Spin:
What Obama is saying is that he doesn't like the US Constitution because it promotes personal liberty too much. It doesn't take property away from some and give it to others. It is, in his eyes, "fundamentally flawed."
More spin:
Obama wants to change the political landscape of America so bad that it shows in everything he does.
Nothing but spin. I'm surprised you're not dizzy from all that spinning! -
Oops! Sorry voodoo. I was writing two posts and copied and pasted part of the wrong one. Let me amend my post to say @voodoo
-
How you can sit there and defend Obama no matter what is said is beyond me. Either you are too stupid to A. realize him for what he is or B. too stubborn to admit he is the most far left radical to ever occupy the WH.
You say that it is okay by you for Obama to fundamentally change America because it "DOES NOT WORK." So if that is true, then why are over ONE MILLION people a year coming to live in America?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Demography
Obama said that the SCOTUS under Warren was not radical enough. Here are Obama's words"
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent, as radical as, I think, people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical; it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.... One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that. You can craft theoretical justification for it legally, and any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."
Obama has further said most recently that he wants to appoint justices that have "empathy towards the weak and underprivilged." The only way to interpret that is that he wants justices that have a bias towards one certain class of people. This goes against what our laws are founded on. The cornerstone of our judicial system is that EVERYONE IS EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. Take that away and you take away rights from everyone, for who is then to determine whom the bias should favor?
As far as his redistribution of wealth, he DID say that. Not only can you see that is what he wants to do from his quote above, but here are some more sources:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFdkTxYrCnQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM
How can you sit there and deny that Obama wants to take from some and give to others? You are disingenuous if you cannot admit that he is a socialist through and through.
As far as Sol Alinsky and Obama...what? Have you been living under a rock?
"Alinsky's teachings influenced Barack Obama in his early career as a community organizer on the far South Side of Chicago.[7][8] Working for Gerald Kellman's Developing Communities Project, Obama learned and taught Alinsky's methods for community organizing."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky#cite_note-WPOST-6
"The agitator’s job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the “realization” that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent “self-interest” in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease. In these methods, euphemistically labeled “community organizing,” Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere."
vbonnaire.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/obama-web-advertising-the-alinsky-model-...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.ht...
You seem incapable of honest debate. You fling rhetoric around like a frantic farmer spraying manure on his crops. You resort to vulgarities and name calling and refuse to see anyone's point but your own misguided view of the world. You seem ashamed of America and everything that makes it great.
Beyond that voodoo, besides the fact that you are wrong about Obama AND America, every time you open your mouth it shows you for the statist that you are. -
These are from the same post! lol!
Either you are too stupid to A. realize him for what he is or B. too stubborn to admit he is the most far left radical to ever occupy the WH.
You resort to vulgarities and name calling and refuse to see anyone's point but your own misguided view of the world. -
Yes they are sati. Good to see that you have finally learned to read. Remind me, where in my post did I use profanity or vulgarities?
-
-
This thread would more aptly be named "liberal to right-wing spin."
-
Right wing talk:
Small Government = no regulation of conservatives or the things conservatives want to do, but the government should regulate every small detail of the lives of people they hate or are afraid of.
No taxes = no taxes for businesses and no taxes collected for programs conservatives don't like. Otherwise, they'll take the programs that taxes pay for, if they like it.
Freedom of speech = only applies to conservatives, and Christians. Everyone else can shut up.
Freedom of religion = You can practice any religion you want so long as you obey the laws of God.
Constitution = 2nd amendment.-
Hate speech, brings nothing to the table.
-
Hypocrite much? Anok only did the same thing you did to the same degree.
-
Hahahahahaha Point in case! It's OK for him to do it, but when I do, it's :hate speech"
Refer to "Freedom of speech" above, and add to it:
"Hate Speech" = Any speech that offends conservatives, including but not limited to, facts, dialogue about equal rights, sexual rights, or pointing out the obvious flaws in conservative thought. (And making fun of Right Wing Pundits) -
Liberal viewpoint=Emotional ranting, offering no facts or proof thereof
-
That only applies to some liberals, but I've noticed that a lot of conservatives make emotionally charged speeches. Most liberals argue from ethics, economics, and science. Then you have the batshit crazy ones, but there are crazy conservatives too so giving them too much limelight is a bad idea.
But it's ironic that you are claiming "Liberal viewpoint=Emotional ranting, offering no facts or proof thereof" when all you've done in every thread I've participated in was make ridiculous claims and offer zero proof.
You intentionally take quotes out of context to prove your point. This is called quote mining, and it's a dishonest tactic used by cowards and con artists.
The irony is killing me. -
Liberal viewpoint=Emotional ranting=Janeane Garofalo
-
-
liberty, do you mean Jeanane Garbageflow?
-
Haaaa, I never get tired of hearing that.
-
Conservative to English translation
Humor = Someone being insulted -
And Sati NEVER does that, oooh no.
-
No, no Sati
Humor = *does not compute* -
Almost sati. But you are only half right.
Liberal to English
Someone being insulted=Jeanane Garbageflow opening her mouth
or
Someone being insulted=A liberal just tried to defend Obama -
What is your obsession with Jeananne Garafalo? She's just an actress/comedienne/activist. And there are far more radical right-wingers out there -- many of them in congress -- Michelle Bachmann for one. Talk about an extremist!
-
Agreed, but would you not also agree that extremism exist on both sides, and it is detrimental? Please don't respond with that there are more on the right.....
-
Okay, name some left-wing extremists in Congress.
-
Sherrod Brown (D., Oh)
Ben Cardin (D., Md)
Frank Lautenberg (D., NJ)
Jeff Merkley (D., Or)
Barbara Mikulski (D., Md)
Roland Burris (D., Il)
John Kerry (D., Ma)
Jack Reed (D., RI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D., RI)
Patrick Leahy (D., Vt)
Tom Harkin (D., Ia)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D., NY)
Richard Durbin (D., Il)
Jeanne Shaheen (D., NH)
Ted Kaufman (D., De)
and lets not forget Pelosi, Reid, Murtagh, Schumer, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd..... -
How do you define extremist? Doing things contrary to the Republican agenda?
-
Even the most left leaning democrats are nowhere near as radical as people like Michelle Bachmann or any other number of right-wing nut jobs in Congress.
-
-
-
Oo, oo...Feinstein too.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
