Posted on 06/15/2016 11:04:23 AM PDT by Rusty0604
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday unleashed a blistering verbal assault on Donald Trump and his proposal for a ban on Muslims entering the country, saying the suggestion violates the principles of American democracy and dismissing the “yapping” from “politicians who tweet.”
Obama also angrily pushed back against criticism for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” calling it “loose talk.”
“What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?” Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. “Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?” he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.
Here is an answer to Obama from Confucius:
“ Zilu said, “If the ruler of Wei were to entrust you with governance of his state, what would be your first priority?”
The Master said, “Most certainly, it would be to rectify names.”
Zilu said, “Is that so? How strange of you! How would this set things right?”
The Master said, “What a boor you are, Yóu! A junzi keeps silent about things he doesn’t understand. If names are not right then speech does not accord with things; if speech is not in accord with things, then affairs cannot be successful; when affairs are not successful, li and music do not flourish; when li and music do not flourish, then sanctions and punishments miss their mark; when sanctions and punishments miss their mark, the people have no place to set their hands and feet. Therefore, when a junzi gives things names, they may be properly spoken of, and what is said may be properly enacted. With regard to speech, the junzi permits no carelessness.” — Analects of Confucius 13:3
(Excerpt) Read more at jihadwatch.org ...
For postmodernist libtards, words do not refer to reality, but language creates reality. If libtards want to evade the truth and reality of the evil of mohammedanism, they will use language that accomplishes that goal.
Right back at ya, BO. If it makes no difference, then why NOT use the correct term?
So, Obama gave us his “What difference does it make speech!”
When we need a leader to lead us, we have Obama who wants to argue.
Lawyers.
They are taught to argue.
No leadership or management classes in law school.
Even in combat lawyers are not trusted with arms. Things that make you go Hmmmm....
He walks into the room
He's got a briefcase like a bomb
A smile on both faces
And he calls it aplomb
He wants a bite of your apple
Hands you back the peel
He's fresh out of law school
He's got a license to steal
When he offers his advice
You can guarantee
For several hundred dollars an hour
He will see just how many complications
Your life will reveal
He's fresh out of law school
He's got a license to steal
He's an ambulance chaser
A waver of papers
He loves to mix with the movers and shakers
He's taking from them
He's taking from you
Lawyers love money
Anybody's will do
Just take it
He's poking his nose into people's despair
When tragedy strikes he will always be there
Looking so cool
His greed is hard to conceal
He's fresh out of law school
You gave him a license to steal
We've got seven hundred thousand attorneys at law
Nobody can tell me what we need them all for
We should throw them in chains
Chastise them and rebuke them
If it doesn't work
We ought to take 'em out and nuke 'em
Blow a lawyer to pieces
It's the obvious way
Don't wait for a thesis
Do it today
Take him to the court of no final appeal
When you're fresh out of lawyers
You don't know how good it's gonna feel.
Al Stewart
"License to Steal"
Exactly. Liberals use words and change meanings all the time to control the narrative.
Confucius said, “Learning without thought brings ensnarement. Thought without learning totters.”
That is something of an awkward translation. We might also say learning without critical thinking brings ensnarement. Critical thinking without knowledge/facts is worthless.
Yes, as Orwell knew well.
That is why I refuse to use either “gay” or “homosexual” when referring to homoerotic persons.
“Gay” is a wonderfully evocative word, used by writers like Tolkien and found in songs like “Deck the Halls,” that has been destroyed by leftists.
“Homosexual” is an ersatz word from the Nineteenth century - when Christianity was being actively displaced by the self-appointed (and self-anointed) intelligentsia.
There is in biological fact no form of functional human sexuality that involves two members of the same sex (of which there are - wait for it - exactly two, as in binary).
It was not so long ago that the very kind of atheist academics who now support the expression and fulfillment of so-called LGBT love were then scoffing at the very concept of love at all: They taught that evolution and biology only cared about spreading genes in an ever-widening and -deepening gene pool, and that love was a chemical illusion, a mere means to an end: Sex, they said, was only about sexual reproduction. Now this kind of professor says that sex is about anything but sexual reproduction, which they despise and discourage via contraception and abortion.
What two such persons experience, no matter how intense, is the eroticization of intimate physical contact between them. It is not sex.
(This, by the bye, is why the GLSEN/NAMBLA agenda is so dangerous. Homoeroticism can be inculcated. They know this, and want access to our vulnerable, innocent children in order to accomplish this: “Get them by eight, or it will be too late.”)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.