ESP and Liberal minds (2)

Once again the subject is language and liberals. The Baltimore Mayor did a stunning reversal, or whatever you call it, on what she clearly stated in a press conference.

“We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” – Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

She later challenged the reporter who challenged what she said. Then she said the problem was the media twisting her words that she never said. Well, she did and we all heard it, but therein is the problem.

Fox’s Megyn Kelley took on the Mayor’s denial. Go to the video tape. Yep, that’s what she said, we heard her. Then it came to pundit commentary, so the token leftist was all bent out of shape that we actually applied her words to her. How dare you! He said what she really meant by those words, and that no mayor or official in the country would allow or want destruction taking place in their city. But she said it.

He went on to interpret what she intended or “meant to say”.(which requires revision) But that the mayor’s heart and concerns were in exactly the right place. It wasn’t just one Democrat pundit, many of the left said the same thing. So they could reinterpret her words into a harmless intent of goodwill, which she really meant. (we all know what she meant) Except for one thing, what the mayor actually said — in her own press conference, not behind doors in private. Though it makes one wonder what she says behind closed doors?

She also used the word thug to describe criminals, but then later revised her words to “misguided young people who need our support.” Apparently that revision satisfied the perpetually-peeved protestors because I haven’t heard any more rev interpretations.

It turns out that Liberals have the gift of telepathy on demand. Yes, they can read minds and intentions. They are good at it, too, because their powers are limitless. Then it’s treated as an official translation and reported that way. For example, if someone says “the sky is blue”, liberals can go out to translate what he meant was it is some color other than white or red, never mind clearly calling it blue. Media would report his intentions. Leftists say if Mayor Blake had it to do over again, she would have said something else. So they can just go ahead and fill in all those blanks for her.

Like Hillary goes out to say they were dead broke leaving the WH and people come out to translate what she really meant by that. So actually dead broke can mean a whole lot of things, I just thought it meant dead broke. Hillary has a village of interpreters.

What about when Obama goes out of his way to make some sort of racial or stereotypical slur? That is fine, the problem was your ears. Libs will rush out to say what he really meant. They say he was right to say those who “cling to guns and religion” with “antipathy” toward others, and it needed to be said. Since he is right, they say he should not apologize but be congratulated. But when you are correct about the term thugs — when even Obama used it — you should be shamed, scolded and forced to apologize… for being right and using the correct term. (no ESP interpretations allowed)

And it turns out the media that can do telepathic interpretations, and police language the rest of us use, runs prison TV on a loop on weekends. We should be shamed and cast as racists for using the word “thug,” while Baltimore’s Mayor Chaos must be given wide birth to telepathic interpretations on whatever she says. Having MSNBC’s #1 race-baiting anchor for a spokesperson, and running the translation efforts for the Mayor, should settle any outrage or dispute over what she says. I’m glad for their ESP expertise. Without their telepathic translators we would never know what looney leftists really say. And often the translations are worse than their actual statements.

RightRing | Bullright

What’s in a word? A lot…

When the left has nothing left they pick on language as a last resort. Political correctness has been their tool of choice. So again they take to being the language police. Now we are back to their favorite tactics, pin the tale on the racist.

They constructed a whole defense around the word “thug”. That’s right, I said that vile, ugly, racial term. Can you believe they have nothing better than to play language games?

The word thug describes the behavior of, well, thugs: be they male or female, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Portuguese, Sicilian, Latino, gangsters, politicians, government officials. white urban teenagers, parents, teachers, union organizers, activists, etc. It is a generic term, or so everybody thought. And along comes the left, academia, media, even professors to say that term is a euphemism for blacks and a racist term. Apparently “thug” is a pejorative — like duh — that they don’t like. Who knew there was a lock on the term?

I’ve described many different people as thugs including politicians like Harry Reid. Let’s get something straight, it is the behavior that begets the label thug, not a skin color or demographic. I’m more amazed how these language and redefinition police have hijacked the term into some narrow and twisted definition. Of course when calling Bush, his administration, conservatives or Tea Partiers thugs that is a different story.

I just don’t understand how description of behavior can be turned into a slur. Every word the left doesn’t like it labels a slur or a racist term. After all, they’ve turned the generic word gay into a sexual identity. That is until someone uses their term in a way they don’t like, and then they attack you for using the term as a slur. Get it? It is not the term at all, it is the person using the term they have issues with. But they are afraid to take their argument up on those terms, so they make it about terms of language. They use the word lesbian. But when you use it they attack you for using a pejorative. Of course the word homophobic is loosely used and its use is freely encouraged.

So it is a game. It’s all about who uses the word that counts. We must know who is using it as to what it means. Terms the left uses all the time are deemed symbols of of hatred, animosity, racism and incivility when used by conservatives or Republicans. I’ve already mentioned a few. “Pride” is sexual awareness. The word protestor is a noble term to the left. But when a conservative uses the term it is supposed to be a slur of hatred. In other words, you meant to call them something else but just substituted a generic word “protestor” instead. See these self-anointed language police get to put all these parameters and qualifiers around words and terms. We get to define what we mean by our words, not them. They think they get to define not only the words but the person using the term.

I have a little hearing test for those left of sanity. The next time someone uses the word “thug,” just ask yourself if you heard “black urban youth” et al, or the word thug?

I used 567 words to talk about one word. A hundred years ago that would have probably seemed absurd, today it has become necessary.

RightRing | Bullright

Buzzwords, adjectives and word salad

One thing notable about the left is their language. They never actually speak directly about something, they call it names.Without saying what their plan is, they declare it “reasonable”. They describe something like playing charades. They want to associate good feelings with whatever their position is. So they use adjectives and describe it in attractive terms. That is usually a dead give away a Democrat is speaking.

And it seems to me the harder they pursue that approach the more Marxist or socialist they are. Their language is also loaded with code words. One cannot miss them, which is the point, they are meant to be obvious.

This is a common tactic on amnesty and illegal immigration, or other issue. You never get the specifics. So you get Nancy telling us we have to pass a bill before you can find out what is in it. Even they will acknowledge they don’t know what is in it before hand. However, they do know all the key terms to describe it. And everyone knows them.

It’s like they are doing an ad for a new Iphone. They cannot tell you exactly what something is but they can tell you how to feel about it. As if as long as you feel the right way about it, the contents don’t matter.

Of course that is just one reason they play that word salad game. There are others like when they attack conservatives or “right-wingers” they want to paint them as bad as they can. So out come the adjectives — from nasty, to bigoted, to hate-filled, to racist.

A friend of mine had several exchanges in the letters to the editor of a newspaper. A Liberal Democrat, who inhabits the pages like his private villa, uses all the typical tactics of the left. The talking points and code words flow like a cheap novel. Almost as if he can’t help himself, he characterizes anyone who disagrees in typical Left-wing vernacular. It definitely is a word salad, you can spot it immediately.

“Welcome to Jonestown — Peoples Temple Agricultural Project ” The Jonestown Institute, http://jonestown.sdsu.edu.

Picture Jonestown and Jim Jones using the term kool-aid for the poison. No wonder the term stuck. A sampling of left-wing dialect might include, but is not limited to, any of the following or combinations.

Fair-minded
Sensible
Level playing field
Reasonable
Fair-share (any hyphenated “fair” word)
Doubling-down
War on women
Fact (used vaguely or as a pejorative)
Sustainable

There’s a larger list of attack words for their opponents. Not to mention their cliches.

Now, on the same language topic, let’s try a little hypothetical. Suppose Congress got Lois Lerner, or other operative, to testify on any scandal. It might look something like this.

Ask any question and they say they don’t know. Let’s begin:
(Q= questioner / A= testifier)

Q: what did you know about …….

A: “I don’t know”

Q: Why don’t you know”

A: I don’t know”

Q: You have to know why you don’t know because…

A: I told you I don’t know.

Q: Look, the rules and law say that in your position you have to know these things, but you say you don’t know?

A: I must not have to know because I don’t.

Q: It’s not possible that you don’t know anything.

A: You are trying to tell me something I don’t know.

Q: I would not do that

A: You just did

Q: All I want to know is what you know about ___.

A: If you want to know what I know, then why do you keep asking me what I don’t know?

Q: But I’m not asking you what you don’t know I’m asking what you do know?

A: I don’t know anything…. and I know what I don’t know.

Q: If you know what you don’t know then you obviously know everything.

A: (blank stare)

Q: You don’t know much do you?

A: Well, I’m sure I don’t know

Q: That just proves it, you do know.

A: I don’t know everything but I know what I don’t know!

Q: See, you do know, and think you know everything. — I yield back…

A: …Do not !!!!!!!!! Stop trying to tell me something I don’t know.

Chair: Shut up ….or you’ll be in contempt !
Now that concludes our job interview, you passed the test.

A: I’d like to exercise my 5th amendment privileges now.

RightRing | Bullright