Posted on 09/07/2019 11:33:55 AM PDT by rktman
Semantic infiltration within the political realm is typically defined, in its various forms, as unknowingly adopting the terms used by an opponent in such a way as to undermines one's own argument.
With the help of their cronies in the mainstream media, leftists are exceptionally good at semantic infiltration. Take, for example, the words "illegal alien." The term is simple enough. When a citizen from a foreign country enters a country not of his origin, he is alien to that newly entered country because, by birth, he is not a citizen of it. When the individual has entered the new country in violation of that country's immigration laws, he can be properly termed an "illegal alien."
Throughout the late 1990s, in order to shift the emphasis away from the very real fact that Mexican nationals crossing the border into the United States were doing so illegally, the Left coined the disingenuous term "undocumented immigrants." The mainstream media, clearly understanding Nazi Germany's propaganda techniques used to influence public perception, began repeating the term "undocumented immigrant" relentlessly.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Even Republicans who should know better call it a democracy.
America had a-holes even at the signing of the Constitution. I believe some signed with fingers behind their back.
Sounds like the Deep State really isn’t so powerful then and Trump should have an easy re-election.
Re-institute an intelligence test before one is permitted to register to vote.
One question. Is the United States of America a Republic or a democracy?
Get it wrong and you are not permitted to register or to vote. Simple.
undocumented migrant?
illegal alien?
Hell no!!
These folks are CRIMINAL INVADERS pure and simple.
They are criminals because that’s what our law says. They are invaders because they don’t have permission.
That remains to be seen but it sure seems like there’s a lot of infighting between groups that have for decades never broken ranks other than occasional minor sniping at one another that was quickly silenced.
<>When Texas goes blue, (very soon) its over.<>
Yes. The great experiment will be over.
bump
First, I am fairly sure the government that uses representative democracy is called a Republic. A classic Republic was Rome but it did not have a Constitution to limit the representatives. The founding fathers decided to add a Constitution to severely limit what the federal government could do. Of course, it only works if the representatives follow it. THus, the US’s federal government is a Constitutional Republic which is executed in representative democracy, at least in part.
Concerning misuse of words, anyone can start using a word to mean the opposite of what it is defined to mean which is your point about the misuse of the word republic today.
The word liberal was changed about a hundred years ago when leftists started taking over our federal government. I call myself a classic liberal but if I use that term today, most people will conclude I am a democrat, progressive or leftist when in fact, i am the exact opposite.
Here is a Friedman video on classic liberalism.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QmeeMYrnweg
JoMa
You couldn't prove it me.. I haven't seen a whole lot of "Law and order" nowadays.. It seems to me that mob rule (democracy) is the up and coming "thing" in the good old U.S.A...
Fine words ... But when we gave our Senators to the federal government and decided to let them educate our children we pretty much gave away anything that resembles "sovereignty".. I mean, we wouldn't let Russia educate our children would we.?? Oh, wait minute, I think we already have.. :(
With the 17th the states lost their power. Democracy has wrecked the nation and the republic.
Um, yes. Even on FR once in a while. STOP IT!
They still have Article V to take it back.
Saying America is a Democracy puts an emphasis on the power a majority of federal voters has, even over the separate powers of individual states.
Saying we are a Republic does the opposite.
So no, there is a big difference.
de Tocqueville wrote, "depotism is particularly to be feared in ages of democracy. I think that at all times I should have loved freedom, but in the times in which we live, I am disposed to worship it.
So it is that de Tocqueville wrote his critique not to propose a choice between democracy or aristocracy, but to "expose the perils which equality threatens human freedom."
A democracy allows for slavery.
It is two wolfs and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.
A republic is the sheep having an AR-15, and everyone considering something else.
There is no rest for free peoples; rest is a monarchical idea. -Georges Clemenceau
The term democratic-republic covers what you mention.
Membership in the Roman Senate was based on being a member of the elite (patrician) class and also how much money you had and land you owned.
Heres a list of countries with a written constitution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions#Codified_constitutions_(most_recently_adopted,_remaining_in_use_today)
Look, we are arguing semantics.
Under the broad umbrella of the term “democracy” is a type of democracy known as a “representative republic”. So we ARE a democracy but our form of democracy is a representative republic as opposed to a direct democracy.
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.