Favorite examples of NEW SPEAK (unemployment, generation, accuse, solution)

[pvande55]

These terms are "doubleplusungood"

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by busterkeaton

Your lack of understanding of how a driver can become overwhelmed by their unconscious need to be in control of all situations.....is quite telling. When we are boxed into a car it can conjure up and then exasperate these feelings of absolute control, due to the person being in their private space(car) and then taking that private space(car) out onto a public space(the road). Take a drive around the town/interstate/wherever today and be amazed at what you may see with your own eyes and an open mind. Responsible drivers can become irresponsible drivers very quickly. But, i'm sure you already knew this, didn't ya Also, don't worry about paying me the dime.....just knowing that you now have a bit more knowledge is payment enough!

Nothing you said contracted what s/he said if you term responsible drivers as drivers who are not overwhelmed by their subconscious fears and emotions.

You might say if a liberal is driving, look out and stay out of their way.

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

"Conservative"used to mean small government and low taxes. It now implies big debt, big government and wars of expansion.


"Liberal" used to represent freedom of choice, defense of civil libertities, tolerance of other lifestyles. It now means support of the police state,patriot act, nannyism, kiiling brown people with drones.

The one thing that everyone should agree on, is that both sides are hypocrits. The one thing, which nobody can deny, is that both political parties have the same goals. They hide behind differing agendas to justify the same end game.

Calling the most repressive of ideologies "Progressive" is a great example of New Speak.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

"Assault weapon" was never a term used by firearms makers. If there was a definiition, it was laid down by the 1994 'assault weapon' ban, also known as the Feinstein Amendment. The MSM accepted the terminology and used it without caveat.

But now there is a new Feinstein Amendment, and the criterion is being changed with two or more 'assault features' to guns with one or more 'assault features.' So when the MSM uses the term "assault weapon" is it the new or old definition? Who knows? Who cares?

What I do know is that journalists who use terms that they can't define, can't possibly know what they are talking about.

"Assault weapon" is a generic term that covers many weapons besides semi-auto rifles and pistols. A rocket propelled grenade, a hand held missile and launcher, rifled mortars, heavy and light machine guns, and cannonry are all assault weapons. So are tanks and other motorized vehicles, and all assault aircraft.

The only distinguishing thing right now is rifles and pistols are the objects of contention. If buying a hammered old Soviet tank that still has functioning weapons becomes as popular as to be a common public threat, we'll be talking about tanks. It's not illegal to own a tank- it's only illegal to have working assault weaponry within them. The cannon can 'fire' blanks by some triggering mechanism, but it cannot be able to fire an artillery shell.

Anyone can purchase a fully automatic military weapon. The permit is very restrictive and must be renewed frequently, and the weapon cannot be sold legally at gun shows and the like, but they can be owned and fired.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

What I do know is that journalists who use terms that they can't define, can't possibly know what they are talking about.

That is true of most of the MSM so-called journalists. Most are clueless.

[stargazzer]

AOL.com Video - Obama Impersonator Shocks Crowds

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

In George Orwell's book 1984 the world adopted a new language called "new speak" in which words and phrases had altered meanings in order to affect public opinion. It is undeniable that some of this phenomena has crept into our present day language, so let's see some of your favorite examples.

Here's one... Car dependent.

A vehicle which gives nearly unrestained freedom being desribed as a restriction.

This thread began as a train wreck.

Car dependent =/= car

That is not new speak. That is a term that describes a condition of dependency.

It's like saying people are air-dependent (true) is a criticism of air (not-true).

[busterkeaton]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Nothing you said contracted what s/he said if you term responsible drivers as drivers who are not overwhelmed by their subconscious fears and emotions.

You might say if a liberal is driving, look out and stay out of their way.

Actually, I did correct her. First, you have to turn off your blinders that only see things in "black and white".....then, you'll be able to see that a perfectly "responsible" driver CAN be overcome by those things I mentioned. The more you know

[tamajane]

Originally Posted by busterkeaton

Actually, I did correct her. First, you have to turn off your blinders that only see things in "black and white".....then, you'll be able to see that a perfectly "responsible" driver CAN be overcome by those things I mentioned. The more you know

It's not automatically black and white because someone disagrees with you.

A responsible driver knows they don't have "total control" when they step in their vehicle and drive away. An idiot, perhaps may believe this, and that one should not be driving.

Your way of thinking would of course scare those bubble wrapped kids into fear of cars and thus, the Newspeak of car-dependent.

"OMG, the car turned me into a violent, maniacal road warrior!" It's the car, man.

In truth, getting one's first car has always been a rite of passage to independence. It's one of the coolest things ever and it's really shameful to try to discourage that but then just another way of disempowering people.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by Komeht

This thread began as a train wreck.

Car dependent =/= car

That is not new speak. That is a term that describes a condition of dependency.

It's like saying people are air-dependent (true) is a criticism of air (not-true).

The only thing that is a train wreck is your post.
But hey you are free to live in your completely dependent world where you are car dependent, food dependent, water dependent, air dependent, money dependent, clothing dependent, and probably government dependent. Must STBY.