Liberals Always Get Caught By The Semantic Games They Play
Semantics is the use language to manipulate the meanings of words in order to achieve a desired effect on an audience. For example when an angry liberal emails me and says, “someone should put a bullet in your head,” I ask if that said liberal thinks that it would be good if someone killed me and then said liberal emails me back crying about how he, “never said that!” Well, this is semantics.
Semantics is the use language to manipulate the meanings of words in order to achieve a desired effect on an audience. For example when an angry liberal emails me and says, “someone should put a bullet in your head,” I ask if that said liberal thinks that it would be good if someone killed me and then said liberal emails me back crying about how he, “never said that!” Well, this is semantics. Yes, it is indeed true that said angry liberal never uttered the exact words, “I wish someone would kill you,” but what else does someone putting a “bullet in my head” imply? Still, to the liberal mindset, this liberal has never said anything as inflammatory as wishing me dead. This is precisely why it is so hard to argue with a liberal. No matter what they say, there is always some semantic argument that they will make that allows them to claim that they never really said what they said. It is like nailing Jell-o to the proverbial tree.
The examples of these semantic games played by liberals are numerous. Abortion is not “murder” because even though an innocent child is being killed in cold blood, they have come up with another name to call it. Formally declared wars are not “formally” declared wars because liberals do not like the verbiage that was used to initiate the use of military force (i.e. war). According to liberals, certain groups of people are not people (i.e. corporations) and said people are not entitled to their first amendment rights because liberals refuse to call them people. But on the other hand, labor unions, groups of people, had better be allowed their first amendment rights and then some or else holy Hell will break loose. Conservatives are “NAZIs” because, even though Nazism stands for National Socialism and was practiced by the National Socialist German Workers' Party, the word “socialism” is not uttered when saying the words “NAZI”. Therefore NAZI magically comes to mean "conservative" rather than left-wing, socialist, progressive moonbat.
And then of course there is Obamacare. Liberals have been all over the place on this one and whether or not the funding mechanism for the program is a “tax” or not. Whether or not it is varies on how Constitutionally inept the person they are arguing with is. It is a “tax” when they want to justify it under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to levy taxes. For reference, the powers of Congress to “tax” are limited to :
• To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
When this is brought up and they can no longer hide ignorantly behind the “general Welfare” clause, their “tax” magically becomes not a “tax” but rather a “fee”. They think that this change of name gets around the fact that the "fee"/"tax" is not Constitutional. Of course, their “fee” is still a “tax”. Why? Well, we just need to look at the definition of terms.
A tax is:
“1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses” 
Since a “fee” is a:
“2 a : a fixed charge b : a sum paid or charged for a service” 
Yeah, see what I mean about semantics? Both are “charges”. The only difference is that a “tax” is a “fee” levied by an “authority” such as, oh, say the government? That means that a “tax” is a government imposed “fee”. So "fee" or not, it is a distinction without a difference once again for liberals.
Thus it will go on like this until the end of time. Or, at least, until the world is devoid of liberals. And that will not happen any time soon. There will always be those in the world who are not half as smart as they think themselves to be. On top of that, there will always be useful idiots who will follow them and wallow in ignorance hoping that this time, just maybe, the stupidity that their leaders speak will magically become truth. So these pathetic, sophomoric, semantic games will go on.