18 thoughts on “Pro-choice caucus deems ‘choice’ as ‘harmful language’ in new messaging protocol”

1. They are right, it is not “pro Choice, it should be called “pro baby killing” All pro choice people need to be labeled “Baby killers” after Dementia Joe said aborting a “child”. If a child is aborted, as opposed to a fetus, that is killing a baby. and that point needs to be pounded into the democrats every day

2. It’s called word play and it’s old news. My ex used to lie and say she changed her mind. It’s manipulation and obviously not working.

3. You can’t make this stuff up. If you saw it in a movie or read it in a novel you would reject it as too stupid.

   Dems do this all the time, sometimes like this, sometimes successful.

   When is the last time you saw the MSM or even GOP officials use the term “Illegal Aliens”? The Dems have succeeded in removing that term from the national debate.

   Do what I do. Every time you see the term “migrant”, “immigrant”, “refugee” or similar write a comment demanding that all of America return to using the correct legal term for these people.

   Illegal Aliens.

   1. You are exactly right when you say the dems have removed words from the debate and Conservatives have allowed it. Consider the frequently used term “Gun Violence”. That implies the gun is violent ignoring the fact guns are inanimate and it is people who are violent.

      1. Debate 103- He who controls the definition of the words used will win the debate.

         1. “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”

            • Bill Clinton

4. dumbdonkeys

   1. They are not donkeys, they are jackasses. The jackass is the symbol of the democrat party, as per Andrew Jackson. FJB

5. Hell, “pro” says it well enough.

6. I’ll admit, it’s getting harder for me not to hate these people. All the more reason to keep telling myself I don’t, and that I don’t want to. My hunch is, somebody out there does want us to hate them as people. If the devil’s best trick is getting people to believe he doesn’t exist, his second is getting those who defend what’s good to do so for the wrong reasons, and his third is getting the wicked to promote evil for the “right reasons”. Those are the best ways to get “the good guys” to give up their souls and “the bad guys” to leave them to him. If “I hate them” becomes a reason for my actions, I’m going to lose no matter what, and perhaps especially in the event that I get what I’m looking for.

   I expect others who share my religious convictions will agree that this new attempt to impose Newspeak on the world is a great way of pulling off the second and third tricks.
   The last item on their list of new terms –“back-alley abortions/coat hangers” becoming “criminalizing healthcare”– is the only encouraging one, since it shows us those people are finally abandoning the older lies/ rhetorical canards. Small comfort, especially in light of the second-to-last item. Saying I can’t refuse to kill something because I think it’s a human being is a dangerous line to cross, and we’ll find, once again, that the slope was more slippery than party poopers like me keep saying it is, rather than less. My first reaction –since I have enough blood in me to sometimes react– was to retort that if they aren’t interested in protecting conscience, it’s because they have no conscience to protect. But I’m wrong, and I think God I am. It’s precisely because they do have a conscience that they have to invent new terms to lie about what we’re doing. And it’s why they have to avoid protecting it, too. They can’t afford to let anyone say what everyone already knows –that they’re in the moral wrong on this one– and so they have to put up a fence around their new counter morality. They’ll have to keep ratcheting it up, unless they accept they’re wrong and turn around.
   Fortunately, fires burn themselves out. If we can’t get them to see they’re wrong rationally, then let them ratchet it up. When their hysteric prophecies fail to come true, we can hope the saner ones will start looking in the right places for good answers.

   1. For my personal favorite I choose “Unexpected pregnancy”. How can pregnancy be unexpected, you do A and B may result. Guess that one of for dems who still think storks deliver babies….

      1. This will be one of the rare occasions that I say-
         ‘We decide for you, for your own good (and taxpayer’s good)’.
         Those boys, girls, and when young adults that have Single Mothers
         (that are on Welfare) will usually practice irresponsible sex.
         That usually results in Second Generation poverty families.
         Also, the young men of a certain ethnic group do 60% of shootings.

         1. Decide to snip-snip these children while their mother is on welfare.

   2. Libbys Can Not Recognize Common Sense.
      Since they blame others for their mistakes, they cannot learn.

      You should not hate the individual,
      but you do not let them have government power, also.

7. They can change the name to whatever makes them feel good. Meanwhile I’ll keep on utilizing the English language as I see fit. Want to bet my descriptions are more accurate? On the plus side, My descriptions don’t have an expiration date

8. Changing “pro choice” to “pro decision” is the same as if GM changed “Chevrolet” to “Chevy.” Doesn’t change a thing!

   1. I think it does. It takes more syllables to say “pro decision”, which forces them to pay that much more attention to what they’re saying while they’re saying it, especially now that they’re in the habit of saying “pro choice” instead. Very good, since I’m sure most of them won’t think about it very hard after they’ve finished talking, and every little bit helps. There’s a reason Newspeak in 1984 tended to use shortened words…

   2. They need to be called pro baby killing, which is what they are. Dementia Joe used the term aborting a “child”. That means we have no more fetus removal, we have baby killing. Make the democrats eat that every day. FJB

Comments are closed.