Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Doublespeak Hall Of Shame

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default Doublespeak Hall Of Shame

    Progressives would disappear overnight without their pseudo moral authority holding them up.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...39#post4454039

    NOTE: Doublespeak, newspeak, propaganda, and the big lie, are so prevalent in the media it is almost impossible to separate one from the other. Doublespeak makes the other three possible. There is an exceptionally long list of Communist doublespeak lies.

    In the past 21 years I believe I identified and posted messages on the biggest Communist lies. Here are a few examples. Also note that doublespeak is a prerequisite in order to overturn the Constitution:

    Funding education with tax dollars is constitutional.

    Subsidizing Hollywood movies is constitutional.

    Congress forcing Americans to pay for the ACA is constitutional. John Roberts & Steny Hoyer.

    Giving organized religions tax dollars is constitutional

    Tax deductible advertising is constitutional.

    Positive Rights are negative Rights. Obama

    Sovereignty is isolationism.

    United Nations law is law.

    America is a democracy.

    Sacco & Vanzetti were innocent.

    Bruno Hauptmann was guilty.


    Every item in the following steps was implemented with lies. Once implemented bigger lies became necessary in order to turn the first lie into truth; hence doublespeak and newspeak.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...72#post2797672

    Every time Democrats came out with a new one I was certain they hit bottom. Fauci is so immersed in doublespeak doctrine he deserves a special niche in the Doublespeak Hall Of Shame for mastering the art of triple-speak.

    Jerry Newcombe’s great piece places "Progressive" near the bottom of the doublespeak barrel. I would add that “Progressive” is deliberate rather than a misnomer:


    It has been said that he who frames the debate wins the debate. The left was brilliant to coin the term "progressive." But in reality, it's one big lie.

    Progress is a good thing, but many of the policies of the so-called "progressives" is anti-progress. "Progressive" is a misnomer.

    As my boss, Dr. Frank Wright notes, "Using the fraudulent manipulation of language, leftist progressives aim to advance their political, environmental, quasi-scientific and socialistic agenda."

    And the Bible says in Isaiah 5, "Woe to those who call evil good" and vice versa.

    Here are seven reasons I believe that "progressive" is indeed a "fraudulent" term and should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

    1. Is it progress when babies are killed in utero in the name of choice, when the majority of the women who abort didn't want to choose abortion, but actually had it forced on them? Even if they did want it, how it is progress for a mother to kill her own child? It's not progress; it's barbarism – but because it is hidden from view, we don't see it that way.
    2. Is it progress to curb free speech in the name of political correctness? It's not progress to allow only one view to be spoken. But this has become the norm on our college campuses today when it comes to the social issues. It's as if the conservative side has lost – but has it even gotten a hearing? I always remember a conversation with the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, an expert on the impact of welfare on society. I asked him one time how he became a conservative. He said it was by hearing Phyllis Schlafly once speak at a campus event. Just one person arguing on behalf of the truth in one setting changed the trajectory of the man's life.
    3. Is it progress to softly subjugate tens of millions of Americans by seducing them to receive government money (paid by other taxpayers) to do nothing – so that they will always vote for the so-called "progressives"? They are born, they live, they die. They never fulfill their God-given vocational destiny, for which they will one day give an account to Him – and yet, they expand the progressives' power base by voting them in time after time. And that's progress?
    4. Is it progress to hamstring the police? To defund them? To humiliate and shame them as if all cops are like the one convicted of murdering George Floyd? We have seen "ACAB" spray-painted all over the place during riots in the last year. That stands for "All Cops Are B–––-." But are they? I thought the whole point of not being prejudiced is not to "pre-judge." There are bad apples among cops. There are bad apples among politicians and preachers and movie actors, etc. But to indict all cops is nuts. Furthermore, is it progress to turn our once-great cities into virtual war zones? Just about all our major cities are run by corrupt political machines. All are on the left and implement the so-called "progressive" agenda. Writing in the Wall Street Journal (May 19), Jason L. Riley notes, "The limp progressive response to rising crime and disorder has benefited Texas and Florida." Violent crime has shot up dramatically in those places where the left has moved to "defund the police." The worst hit is the urban poor. No wonder Gallup found that 81% of black Americans do not support defunding the police.
    5. Is it progress to spend gazillions of dollars we do not have – thus, bankrupting our children and children's children, possibly one day forcing the dollar into hyperinflation? In the Weimar Republic of Germany (which collapsed, helping to lead to Nazi rule), it was said that bringing a wheelbarrow full of cash could only purchase a loaf of bread. The cart itself was worth more than the millions in paper money it contained.
    6. Is it progress to jettison constitutional government? No government system has brought so much stability for so long in world history as has the American system. But the "progressives" claim the Constitution is allegedly racist and must go.
    7. Is it progress to indoctrinate America's school children and teach them a bunch of lies so that they will grow up to hate their own country? Where's the progress in that? As one critic put it, "Marxism in the classroom, riots in the streets."

    "Progressives" don't promote real progress. They promote socialism. So why not just call them that? "Progressive" is false advertising.

    "Conservatives," in contrast, have something to conserve.

    I believe Patrick Henry put his finger on why we have fallen for the "progressive" myth. He declared, "It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains."

    7 reasons the term 'progressive' is a fraud
    Exclusive: Jerry Newcombe wishes leftists would call their movement what it truly is
    By Jerry Newcombe
    Published June 1, 2021 at 7:14pm

    https://www.wnd.com/2021/06/7-reason...ressive-fraud/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Fauci is so immersed in doublespeak doctrine he deserves a special niche in the Doublespeak Hall Of Shame for mastering the art of triple-speak.

    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    51,698
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    why do people always forget to add 'all rights can be regulated'????????
    In a combat situation it is about 16 times better to do something useful and violent right away than to wait and figure out something even more useful and violent later.
    “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.”

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    'all rights can be regulated'????????

    To SmarterthanYou:
    No they cannot.

    The Rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute until they are amended. Those Rights were designed to protect the people from the government. That is why Democrats must abolish the original Bill of Rights with unconstitutional laws —— executive orders, bureaucratic mandates, gun laws, hate laws, loss of freedom of speech and religion, and judicial legislation, are just a few changes Socialists/Communists achieved without amending the Constitution:


    Amending the Constitution was never meant to be simple. Although thousands of amendments have been discussed since the original document was approved in 1788, there are now only 27 amendments in the Constitution.

    Though its framers knew the Constitution would have to be amended, they also knew it should never be amended frivolously or haphazardly. Clearly, their process for amending the Constitution has succeeded in meeting that goal.

    Constitutional amendments are intended to improve, correct, or otherwise revise the original document. The framers knew it would be impossible for the Constitution they were writing to address every situation that might come along.

    Ratified in December 1791, the first 10 amendments—The Bill of Rights—list and vow to protect certain rights and freedoms granted to the American people and speak to the demands of the Anti-Federalists among the Founding Fathers by limiting the power of the national government.

    Ratified 201 years later, in May 1992, the most recent amendment—the 27th Amendment—prohibited members of Congress from raising their own salaries.

    Two Methods

    Article V of the Constitution itself establishes the two ways in which it may be amended:


    "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

    In simple terms, Article V prescribes that amendments may be proposed either by the U.S. Congress or by a constitutional convention when and if demanded by two-thirds of the legislatures of the states.


    Method 1: Congress Proposes an Amendment

    An amendment to the Constitution may be proposed by any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate and will be considered under the standard legislative process in the form of a joint resolution.

    In addition, as ensured by the First Amendment, all American citizens are free to petition Congress or their state legislatures to amend the Constitution.

    To be approved, the amending resolution must be passed by a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and the Senate.

    Given no official role in the amendment process by Article V, the president of the United States is not required to sign or otherwise approve the amending resolution. Presidents, however, typically express their opinion of proposed amendments and may attempt to persuade Congress to vote for or against them.
    States Ratify the Amendment

    If approved by Congress, the proposed amendment is sent to the governors of all 50 states for their approval, called “ratification.” Congress will have specified one of two ways by which the states should consider ratification:


    The governor submits the amendment to the state legislature for its consideration; or

    The governor convenes a state ratifying convention.


    If the amendment is ratified by three-fourths (currently 38) of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions, it becomes part of the Constitution.

    Congress has passed six amendments that never received ratification by the states. The most recent was to give full voting rights to the District of Columbia, which expired unratified in 1985.


    Robert Longley
    Updated January 16, 2020

    https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-ame...tution-3368310
    NOTE:


    Although there is no constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture, transportation, and sale of addictive drugs, the XVIII Amendment serves as a beacon shining on what not to do. Prohibition was an attempt to legislate the behavior of law-abiding citizens as opposed to prohibiting murder, theft, and so on.

    The XVIII Amendment was such a disaster it stands as the only Amendment ever to be repealed, and it was repealed a mere 13 years after it was ratified. Those 13 years gave the country organized crime, and corrupt government officials on every level. The Volstead Act was enforced, although not effectively, resulting in an army of successful gangsters like Al Capone.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...31#post2967431

    The Founding Fathers did not write or influence the 17 Amendments that came along after the Bill of Rights. Basically, every one of those 17 amendments is designed to enforce a government bill of Rights. In short: Protect the government from the people.

    Incidentally, the XVI & XVII Amendments were never ratified. After those two amendments were ‘implemented’ they became the foundation for today’s tyrannical federal government.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    In the past 21 years I believe I identified and posted messages on the biggest Communist lies. Here are a few examples. Also note that doublespeak is a prerequisite in order to overturn the Constitution:

    XXXXX


    America is a democracy.
    Lest we forget. Obama’s boy, Merrick Garland, was an inch away from a seat on the Supreme Court. He was rejected. No matter. He is doing the lying sack of shit’s dirty work as attorney general.

    Notice how Obama-Biden-Garland make a mockery out of the Constitution:


    Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday issued a threat to states that are adopting new rules and regulations intended to assure the integrity of U.S. elections.

    He said, according to a report in the Washington Examiner, he's beefing up the number of lawyers in his Civil Rights Division to investigate voter rights.

    "We are scrutinizing new laws that seek to curb voter access, and where we see violations, we will not hesitate to act," he promised.

    Many state legislatures have adopted new regulations for their elections following the 2020 presidential race that was rife with accusations of election fraud and mismanagement.

    "Fact-checkers" across the country repeatedly have claimed that the elections were run without significant issues, but the fact is that courts almost uniformly refused to even consider the evidence provided in hundreds of sworn statements and more.

    Several states still are running audits of their results.

    What is not in dispute is that in multiple states various officials simply changed state laws to accommodate the ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though the Constitution allows only state legislatures to make those changes.

    Further, there's still no quantification of any impact that might have resulted from $400 million from Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg that was turned over to various local election commissions on the condition that the leftist organizations he chose could have a hand in running the voting.

    Garland claimed those voter integrity laws have been aimed at making "it harder to vote."

    And he charged that those audits "may undermine public confidence in our democracy."

    QUESTION: Whose confidence is undermined in a democracy? ANSWER: Throughout history democracy has been the parasite’s preferred form of government.

    The Examiner noted the 2020 elections "saw an expansion of early and mail-in voting because of the coronavirus pandemic. When President Joe Biden claimed victory over former President Donald Trump, many Republican-led states disagreed with the results and challenged them at the Supreme Court."

    While that court did not accept that case for review, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said it should have been heard. Later, after the high court refused to even hear another case, Thomas said the court was in a position to calm fears about election integrity and suggested that should have happened.

    "By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence," he warned.


    Garland threatens states' efforts to assure voting integrity
    Bob Unruh By Bob Unruh
    Published June 11, 2021 at 7:43pm

    https://www.wnd.com/2021/06/garland-...ing-integrity/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Obama’s boy, Merrick Garland, was an inch away from a seat on the Supreme Court. He was rejected. No matter. He is doing the lying sack of shit’s dirty work as attorney general.

    It does not get better than this:





    Arizona state Senator Wendy Rogers
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...rs-arizona.jpg

    You will not touch Arizona ballots or machines unless you want to spend time in an Arizona prison.


    Arizona Lawmaker Responds to AG Garland: “You Will Not Touch Arizona Ballots or Machines Unless You Want to Spend Time in Arizona Prison”
    By Jim Hoft
    Published June 11, 2021 at 5:19pm

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...rizona-prison/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    “EDIFY will provide needed answers for Catholics and all people on the biggest issues of our time in a ready and digestible format.”

    There is only one issue now and forever. STOP GIVING TAX DOLLARS TO ORGANIZED RELIGION.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    NOTE: Doublespeak, newspeak, propaganda, and the big lie, are so prevalent in the media it is almost impossible to separate one from the other. Doublespeak makes the other three possible. There is an exceptionally long list of Communist doublespeak lies.

    In the past 21 years I believe I identified and posted messages on the biggest Communist lies. Here are a few examples. Also note that doublespeak is a prerequisite in order to overturn the Constitution:

    XXXXX


    Giving organized religions tax dollars is constitutional
    Frankly, I do not need a religious fanatic enlightening me about anything; most especially when they use tax dollars to do it:


    Landry noted that “EDIFY” means “to teach in ways that enlighten, encourage and uplift individuals intellectually, morally, or spiritually.”

    Finally, Catholics might get their goddamned hands off the public purse if they want to help what my country used to be:


    “EDIFY is a perfect name to describe what we are hoping to accomplish for our church and our country,” he added.


    CatholicVote Launches ‘EDIFY’ Platform: ‘PragerU for Catholics’
    by Dr. Susan Berry
    1 Oct 2021

    https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2021...eru-catholics/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Similar Threads

  1. NPC doublespeak in the news
    By Legion in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-19-2018, 12:02 PM
  2. CHICKENHAWK HALL O' SHAME; Trumpy-The-Klown!!!
    By Mr. Shaman in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-19-2016, 10:00 AM
  3. Benghazi Hall of Shame
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-10-2013, 05:28 PM
  4. Hall of shame
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-19-2012, 04:40 AM
  5. Doublespeak
    By Canceled.LTroll.29 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2008, 09:17 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •