This is bit of a rarity since I don’t create too many new topics.

There is a subject I like to divulge in with (perhaps) some civility about the new language the Progressives are slowly ingraining into our society. It is easily labeled as Political Correctness, which is accurate enough, but I like to look into how far deep this abrasion is in the modern American English lexis.

Most of you can point out the obvious with recent events on how they classified the shooting in Fort Hood as “workplace violence” rather than a “terrorist attack.” Or how about when the Boston Massacre was first considered a “tragedy” rather than calling for what it is, a terrorist attack. A tragedy is a family killed in a car accident. Boston was a deliberate attack on the American people.
Although both of these so-called examples of Doublespeak seem a gratuitous rendering of what actually was said and an ad hominem on Liberals, let me say this: that the Fort Hood shooting has those that were killed or injured going without compensation while that doctor is stilll getting his salary is a total injustice. To say "they" (Liberals) are responsible for calling it "workplace violence" cannot be supported. And are you saying that Liberals wanted to coverup a terrorist attack (for what end?) by "first" calling it a tragedy? What do you mean by first? The first thing you heard it called and a moment later it was terrorism?
It was first and foremost a tragedy; when innocent people, as in a car crash, die or are killed senselessly it is called a tragedy. Speculation about this tragedy was immediately thought to be terrorism. Just as in a plane crash. First it is a tragedy and then the speculation comes as to what was the cause.

Or how about that infamous "spread the wealth around" debacle during the 2008 elections? That's code for socialism boys and girls, but naw that's a bit "extreme" for so-called "centrists" here.
Considering taxes as wealth, it has always been spread around, and neither side usually likes all of where it goes. The "redistribution of wealth," in Socialism, is when the government has social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. This has not happened in this country, which is why Liberals are not socialists. Social welfare programs, such as Social Security (which is NOT an entitlement program) and Medicare are democratic programs to aid citizens. In the recent financial crisis, we got so close to the brink that some economists believe that without Social Security money entering the economy, we may have plunged into an all out depression.

So these are obvious indicators in this 1984-ish “New Speak” creeping into our society. How about the more latent things such as how the term “liberal” is used to identify a group of people by which they need to be more accurately identified as socialists in accordance to their stances. To compensate with modern idioms the term “Classic Liberal” has to be thrown in to reclassify who were people of true small governance rather than government socialism. If push comes to shove it is safe to say the Founding Fathers, at the time, were “liberal.” What was a liberal back then translates into libertarian or constitutionalist nowdays. The same to say the term “conservative” was used to describe the old Puritans or the Quakers during the colonial days or the Royal Heirarchy during the French Revolution.
"Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing [1]), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language.[2][3]
The term doublespeak probably has its roots in George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty-Four." Wikipedia
An excellent example of this is The Patriot Act, a name given by conservatives. Do you know that the Republicans paid a lot of money to create a rather large lexicon of Doublespeak?

In the modern age the terminologies have been twisted and turned into something that suits with eye of the beholder. Nowdays the people who are for small governance, fiscal accountability and free markets are the conservatives versus those who think bigger government is the solution to all of society’s ills through socialized healthcare, unionized labor and wealth equality by committee are liberal. This is generally what is accepted by American society without the far-left dribble thrown in. (I hope that is a fair assessment) This is a normality creep which comes with the territory but you see how easily this can be corrupted?
This is basically true. Reagan would have a hard time in today's Republican Party. He might even be called a Liberal in sheep's clothing.

Or how about this recent deliberate and methodical dismemberment of the sacred tradition of Holy Matrimony? What is Marriage? Has “progress” come to the point that we must redefine what Marriage is and burn the dictionaries that does not agree with this more progressive bastardization in what Marriage is?
Humanity has been "redefining," thank God, many things that were once thought of as okay, such as slavery, aristocracy, women and children as chattel, and imperialism. Is "gay marriage" an equality issue? America has been notoriously slow on such issues. But if the ideal is equality for all, and not some religious scruple, isn't it time for change?

If this is progress then I shall not have any part of it.

This is bit of a rarity since I don’t create too many new topics.

There is a subject I like to divulge in with (perhaps) some civility about the new language the Progressives are slowly ingraining into our society. It is easily labeled as Political Correctness, which is accurate enough, but I like to look into how far deep this abrasion is in the modern American English lexis.
============================
Does "lexis" mean "lexicon?"


Most of you can point out the obvious with recent events on how they classified the shooting in Fort Hood as “workplace violence” rather than a “terrorist attack.” Or how about when the Boston Massacre was first considered a “tragedy” rather than calling for what it is, a terrorist attack. A tragedy is a family killed in a car accident. Boston was a deliberate attack on the American people.
==================
So were the Israeli attacks on the USS Liberty.


Or how about that infamous "spread the wealth around" debacle during the 2008 elections? That's code for socialism boys and girls, but naw that's a bit "extreme" for so-called "centrists" here.
=============
Not code at all, it is well-known as a goal of the enemies of capitalism and America.



So these are obvious indicators in this 1984-ish “New Speak” creeping into our society. How about the more latent things such as how the term “liberal” is used to identify a group of people by which they need to be more accurately identified as socialists in accordance to their stances. To compensate with modern idioms the term “Classic Liberal” has to be thrown in to reclassify who were people of true small governance rather than government socialism. If push comes to shove it is safe to say the Founding Fathers, at the time, were “liberal.” What was a liberal back then translates into libertarian or constitutionalist nowdays. The same to say the term “conservative” was used to describe the old Puritans or the Quakers during the colonial days or the Royal Heirarchy during the French Revolution.

In the modern age the terminologies have been twisted and turned into something that suits with eye of the beholder. Nowdays the people who are for small governance, fiscal accountability and free markets are the conservatives versus those who think bigger government is the solution to all of society’s ills through socialized healthcare, unionized labor and wealth equality by committee are liberal. This is generally what is accepted by American society without the far-left dribble thrown in. (I hope that is a fair assessment) This is a normality creep which comes with the territory but you see how easily this can be corrupted?

Or how about this recent deliberate and methodical dismemberment of the sacred tradition of Holy Matrimony? What is Marriage? Has “progress” come to the point that we must redefine what Marriage is and burn the dictionaries that does not agree with this more progressive bastardization in what Marriage is?
=============
Some of those people would like to marry their own mothers or fathers.

If this is progress then I shall not have any part of it.

You are correct, Ghost! It's like the old saying, "Put a frog in a pot of water and heat it up slowly, and the frog will boil to death instead of jumping out." Ronald Regan also said (para-phrasing), "People will not accept principles of socialism, but will accept the same principles in the name of liberalism." Unless we, the people, can elect more politicians to government offices that subscribe to the founding fathers' idea of liberty and freedom (which seems hard to do) we will continue down the slippery slope of socialism/progressivism/liberalism. I just hope is not too late to undo most of what has been done to this country! I know it will take years and many of the above described politicians to be elected.

It'll take an entire generation to repair the damage done by the Progressives, that is if we start now. Progressives are methodical as they are persistent this won't be an easy fight. As long as they have "useful idiots" and TOOLs from the left swelling the ranks in politics and academia through indoctrination, beautiful lies and deciet they will in a numbers game.

We can start by tearing down these political correctness barriers and not fall into this New Speak trap and defy the double standards set in place.

Defiance is the best weapon against these Progressives. They're very much like the old Soviet mongoloid-esque mentality that the only thing they respect is strength and tenacity. Ronald Reagan knew this and capitalized it during his term in office which ultimately left America the last superpower standing in the post Cold-War era.

If we show them we will not be deterred and shall not bow to their Bolshivistic tactics the rest will fall in place. At the same time we need to show the free-thinkers the other side of the spectrum and expose the Progressive lies as conceited vices to manipulate, indoctrinate and forever sedate that "rugged invidualism" that made America that shiny beacon of opportunity in the world.

In the words of Army General Joe Stillwell: Illegitimi non carborundum

Quite the contrary, Rummy. Like you don't ignore or mock the refutations of your contemporaries here? The level of hypocrisy is sickening to say the least.

It is your kind that thrives off of fear. Your depravity, your arrogance and your total disregard of one's belief and principles that has turned into a new form of Manifest Destiny drives conservatives. The debt, fiscal irresponsbility and a corrupt government drives the Tea Party.

Fear, intimidation, obfuscation and great lies is what drives the Progressives. You keep getting your rocks off on that Machivillian mental masturbation and your hypocrisy has already reduced your credibility to zero.

You don't have a leg to stand-on other than on your empty and ill concieved rhetoric pulled out of far-left rags because you have no mind of your own.

Quite the contrary, Rummy. Like you don't ignore or mock the refutations of your contemporaries here? The level of hypocrisy is sickening to say the least.

It is your kind that thrives off of fear. Your depravity, your arrogance and your total disregard of one's belief and principles that has turned into a new form of Manifest Destiny drives conservatives. The debt, fiscal irresponsbility and a corrupt government drives the Tea Party.

Fear, intimidation, obfuscation and great lies is what drives the Progressives. You keep getting your rocks off on that Machivillian mental masturbation and your hypocrisy has already reduced your credibility to zero.

You don't have a leg to stand-on other than on your empty and ill concieved rhetoric pulled out of far-left rags because you have no mind of your own.