Language use in contrast to what is actually being said

I know it would be considered by some a 'bad thing' but I really need to stop reading political news. All it does at this point is serve to piss me off more than provide any insight to the political processes that run this country. The one thing that I have taken away from it is being able to listen to the words that are coming out of someone's mouth and translate those words into what they are really saying.

Now I will preface the following with the statement that I am a contradicting liberal. I think we should extend hands out to help our fellow citizens and that everyone should be given a chance. Additionally I think the playing field should be fair and balanced for everyone. But I also support abortion and the death penalty (when used appropriately.)  Most of my issues are with the republican party at this point, though if you give me a bit of time I will be quite capable of calling out the democratic party on their bullshit too.

So, that said, lets look at one of the biggest things that the republican party has been preaching:

"We need to create jobs."

They say that they want to create jobs, but keep look at what isn't being said. It will tell a lot about what is really being told to you. What they are not stating is where they want to create the jobs. So far I have yet to hear anyone of them say that they want to create jobs in the country that they are supposedly administrating responsibly. Instead, it seems that they want to create jobs for American companies in third world countries where they don't have to pay the workers the same expected wages that they would have to pay a citizen of the United States for doing the same amount of work and producing the same quality of work. (You don't have to go to another country to get shitty quality goods. I'm a lazy American and I know we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own... we don't need to offshore that quality of our citizenry.)


"We can't do this because it is bad for business"

Another line of shit I see spew out of these walking septic tanks. What does this mean if we look at the language directly: it means that businesses will suffer (supposedly) if we were to follow a particular political path. The one thing I never hear or see is evidence backing these statements that 'business will suffer.' I think what they really mean is that this will require businesses to spend more on maintaining their internal infrastructure and we can't have that because that would mean that not as much money would be lying around doing nothing except to be used as a rag when investors look at their accounts and decide to stroke themselves. Money that sits around does nothing and makes a business stagnant. If you use that money to build on your infrastructure you can make a more sustainable company - its simple economics (I think): make a smart, internal, investment in your company with your profits, and you will (hopefully) profit from that investment (btw: this includes PAYING YOUR WORKERS GOOD, EQUAL, LIVABLE WAGES.)

I seriously want to know what how X would be bad for business and I never have gotten a satisfactory answer. A statement like this with no real evidence backing it other then 'speculation' is bullshit at best.


"Unions are evil and they take and give nothing back."

I will grant you one major thing with this statement in that there is a lot of useless bureaucracy and wasted money inside unions. I will grant you that wholeheartedly. So that said, I have seen/heard these words being spouted out (not exactly verbatim) and I have to state that this is absolute bullshit. What they are telling me, based on the actions and 'evidence' that I've seen is that unions are one of the few obstacles that remains in their way (they being inanimate entities known as corporations) from having total dictatorial control over the lives of the people who are responsible for ensuring that the foundations of these organizations are stable.

That said, I do think that there is a lot of waste in unions and I have strong objections to the idea of 'tenured positions.' It would be a lot better if the anti-union preachers would back up their statements in regards to the corruption of unions and their lack of benefit to society with actual evidence rather then a mix of straw-man arguments and jingoistic rhetoric that they hear at the dinner table.



I can probably think of more here, but these are the things that have been popping up more often then not as of late.