Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/108369/20150710/democrats-declare-war-words-husband-wife.htm

Am trying to find any non conservative news articles on this. But this is interesting if true, if not downright idiotic.

That's ****ing stupid.

Lol are you f*cking kidding me? Someone must be pumping liquid LSD into our water supply. This is now getting way way out of control.

Meh, this is talking about in law. I.e. something written for technical accuracy, not for, y'know, what people are normally called.

Like the article notes: "Capps goes on to mention other advantages the bill would provide if it became law. In one example, she noted that U.S. law says that it's illegal to threaten the president's wife, but says nothing about the president's husband. The bill would protect the husband as well by changing the "wife" to "spouse." "


It's just closing legal loopholes, not declaring a 'war on the words husband and wife.'

Once again, conservatives raising a panic over nothing. The article may phrase it in a sensationalist way, but that's seriously about the most boring topic I can think of judging by the actual information inside of it.

Why can't we say it's illegal to threaten the presidents wife or husband? Are we paying for these laws by the word, or something? If so we have a lot more to worry about then the wording of certain laws.

"Over two dozen Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the words "husband" and "wife" from federal law."

There is a big difference between eliminating words from everyday life and eliminating words from federal law.

If they eliminated the words from federal law, there is nothing to stop people from using the words in everyday life.

Originally posted by Surtur
Why can't we say it's illegal to threaten the presidents wife or husband? Are we paying for these laws by the word, or something? If so we have a lot more to worry about then the wording of certain laws.


Ugh, you're missing the point.


Right now, there's several laws that say husband or wife, but not both (i.e. the law only include a single word in that slot, like, just-wife, it doesn't say 'wife or husband'), even when the situation can apply to either, so right now, the other spouse would be uncovered by the law if the entered the situation. A first husband would not have the protections of a first lady at the moment.


Laws that say 'husband and wife' or 'husband or wife' are no problem whatsoever, but they want to change the ones that only mention one of those to cover both.

And there's an existing english word for that: Spouse.

If we didn't have the word spouse, it'd be 'husband and wife/wife and husband,' but since we do have the word spouse, is there a particular reason to expand the word count and use the whole phrase? Not that I can see. I doubt it even occurred to them because it's simply smoother english, but the phrase and 'spouse' are, legally speaking, interchangeable, they just happened to use one rather than the other, but the important thing is it covers both.


Short version: This is a legal semantic change which is neither encouraging nor discouraging the usage of any word in any day to day sense, but purely to close loopholes that could make for problems.



Is everyone done panicking now?

Agreed with Q.

Nobody is panicking, I thought it was just an interesting topic. I don't think anybody takes democrat lawmakers seriously.

Originally posted by Q99
This is a legal semantic change which is neither encouraging nor discouraging the usage of any word in any day to day sense, but purely to close loopholes that could make for problems. Works for me.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Nobody is panicking, I thought it was just an interesting topic. I don't think anybody takes democrat lawmakers seriously.

Dmb and Surtur were panicking. Heck, the original article had a title that reeked of panic. 'Declare war on words'? A sensationalist freak-out not remotely justified by their own content.


Like I said, this isn't silly in the least, it's fixing a simple and obvious loophole. What was being proposed is actually really sensible and straightforward, and is in anticipation of a situation highly likely to occur in the near future.


Democrats, if you'll recall, are the ones who actually try and get things done nowadays, and even succeed when given a chance (like the health care bill, which was a smashing success- insurance for millions and under budget), rather than make empty noise and take pride in not doing anything like their opposite numbers, and throwing temper tantrums when they can't get votes (Opponents passed something they don't like? Threaten to crash the economy, actually shut down the government, costing tens of billions of dollars + unknown amount of economic side effects).

I'm sorry, the democrats are trying to get things done? The AFA was a smashing success? The Republicans threaten to crash the economy/shut the government down? I must get your sources. Everytime there's a president that 's one party, the other party ****s with him. It happened with the Bush family, as well as Regan. The only time everyone worked together was during the Clinton administration, so I doubt you were out there complaining about the Democrats messing with everything Bush was doing. Again, this reeks of baseless bias and I would love to see your sources.

This is similar to this thread, which dealt with the same issue as California did it.

It was a good idea then, and it is a good idea now. Spouse is a perfectly fine and gender neutral word, making it easier for laws not to discriminate, and on top of that, it makes the legal text shorter and solves a couple other stylistic problems.

Oh yeah... they get things done alright. Like granting amnesty to millions of criminals, trying to take away gun rights from veterans, giving out food stamps/welfare to millions that don't deserve it, persecuting Christians, making stupid laws like net neutrality, race baiting, weakening our military, not taking the advice of our top military advisors to protect our extremely vulnerable outdated power grid from an EMP strike which would send us back to the Dark Ages if it happens, firing our best military leaders and replacing them with peole who are inexperienced because he wants people who won't hesitate to question his authority when he unlawfully finally declares martial law, destroying traditional Christian values, showing more respect to Allah than the One true God, etc, etc, etc,...Basically just promoting their overall socialistic agenda and destroying America. Yeah, democrats get things done alright.


LMAO.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm sorry, the democrats are trying to get things done? The AFA was a smashing success? The Republicans threaten to crash the economy/shut the government down? I must get your sources. Everytime there's a president that 's one party, the other party ****s with him. It happened with the Bush family, as well as Regan. The only time everyone worked together was during the Clinton administration, so I doubt you were out there complaining about the Democrats messing with everything Bush was doing. Again, this reeks of baseless bias and I would love to see your sources.



Everyone who isn't blind knows that Q99, just like most people on this forum, think democrats can do no wrong and are the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread. It's actually pretty hilarious how they pathetically defend them by making lame excuses for their outrageous behavior and/or policies.

Let's cut back on the attacks on posters that bring nothing to the thread, thanks.

Yo I wasn't insulting Q99 by any means. That's a low blow honestly.

Ush didn't single you out. The tone in the GDF has been pretty aggressively lately generally.

But maybe back on topic, your initial posts makes it seem like you think this idea is idiotic, could you elaborate on that and explain why you think so?

Why do people care so much about what words are used by lawyers in their legal jargon?

I'm a democrat, and I don't care what you call the person you snu-snu with. But I can see from a legal standpoint where it would make sense to switch husband and/or wife to spouse.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ush didn't single you out. The tone in the GDF has been pretty aggressively lately generally.

But maybe back on topic, your initial posts makes it seem like you think this idea is idiotic, could you elaborate on that and explain why you think so?

You want me to tell you why removing those two words from federal law is idoitic? If I have to ask "wtf", I assume it's automatically idiotic unless there is a legitimate explanation (there isn't). I didn't think I had to elaborate on why it is idiotic. At the same time as Q99 said, it's not a major issue, just plain stupid.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You want me to tell you why removing those two words from federal law is idoitic? If I have to ask "wtf", I assume it's automatically idiotic unless there is a legitimate explanation (there isn't). I didn't think I had to elaborate on why it is idiotic. At the same time as Q99 said, it's not a major issue, just plain stupid.

I think there are valid reasons for why this is a good implementation of writing laws. Q99 provided some, I did as well, and the other thread I linked discussed it further.

Oh true, I did not see the legal loopholes, nor your post. Ok I suppose that's one, at least in terms of semantics. I still feel a little weird about THAT being written into federal law, even if it doesn't really mean anything.

Progressives will never stop until they subjugate anyone who disagrees.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Why do people care so much about what words are used by lawyers in their legal jargon?

Because once they start. They don't stop.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh true, I did not see the legal loopholes, nor your post. Ok I suppose that's one, at least in terms of semantics. I still feel a little weird about THAT being written into federal law, even if it doesn't really mean anything.

Legal semantics are boring and finicky.

And... 'that'? Is the word spouse so weird a word? ^^;;


Btw, when you think about it, this should've been done back in, like '07. Back when it looked like it was going to be Hillary vs McCain/Palin, because if it had been that, then no matter who won it'd have come into play.

One of the Republican primary candidates is a woman this time too, so there is a slim chance (she's not a very strong candidate, she's something of a failed CEO) that it'll end up with a 'first husband' who needs coverage no matter who wins the election.




Are you projecting?


It's funny how you make progressives up into a big boggieman, when all you're doing is complaining about a simple legal fix, and how it tends to be the Republicans who push hardest for the limitation of freedoms on civil rights / spend their greatest effort fighting on things that aren't subjugating anyone (see: Gay marriage).

There's precisely zero subjugation here. This is for the purpose of making sure people who should logically be covered by laws, are covered, even if people didn't foresee there being a 'First Husband' back when the laws were written.


Like it's been covered, you're panicking over the closing of a legal loophole. You are freaking out and calling subjugation over the use of a slightly broader synonym.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Because once they start. They don't stop.

You're gonna have to prove the government would make any serious effort to get people to stop calling their spouses husbands and wives in everyday talk, because that is a bold assertion.

This thread is a hilarious example of conservatives overreacting over something they don't understand.

I see you have been worked up

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This thread is a hilarious example of conservatives overreacting over something they don't understand.
I'm no conservative. I was just misled by the title.

Originally posted by Q99
Ugh, you're missing the point.


Right now, there's several laws that say husband or wife, but not both (i.e. the law only include a single word in that slot, like, just-wife, it doesn't say 'wife or husband'), even when the situation can apply to either, so right now, the other spouse would be uncovered by the law if the entered the situation. A first husband would not have the protections of a first lady at the moment.


Laws that say 'husband and wife' or 'husband or wife' are no problem whatsoever, but they want to change the ones that only mention one of those to cover both.

And there's an existing english word for that: Spouse.

If we didn't have the word spouse, it'd be 'husband and wife/wife and husband,' but since we do have the word spouse, is there a particular reason to expand the word count and use the whole phrase? Not that I can see. I doubt it even occurred to them because it's simply smoother english, but the phrase and 'spouse' are, legally speaking, interchangeable, they just happened to use one rather than the other, but the important thing is it covers both.


Short version: This is a legal semantic change which is neither encouraging nor discouraging the usage of any word in any day to day sense, but purely to close loopholes that could make for problems.



Is everyone done panicking now?

But this is utter bunk. HOW did I miss the point? The point, as you just friggin explained ad nauseam is that the laws specify either "wife" or "husband" but not both. So how is me saying "can't we just include both words" missing the point?

I never said it was encouraging not using the words. I was asking why, if this is about law wording, they can't just add an extra word. Like "presidents wife cant be hurt" becomes "presidents wife/husband can't be hurt" or if a slash isn't clear enough "the presidents wife or husband can't be hurt".

So if this is all about semantics, why stir the pot at all? Seems just making it apply to husband or wife would be fine, didn't even need to be a friggin story. I ask again: when we write these laws are we paying for them by the word, like a newspaper ad or something?

Go click the link, read the title of that article. Notice anything? How it says democrats declared "war" on these words? Yeah, so misleading or not: do you feel this was a predictable response? If so, I ask again: why stir the pot, why not just put both terms husband and wife into the law? We have vastly more important things to worry about in this country, why give people an excuse to focus on something stupid?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This thread is a hilarious example of conservatives overreacting over something they don't understand.



"They changed marriage and now they want to take our words away!"

Our. Come on Rob... Damn

Really? Now you're editing in? You and your silly games. Let the butthurt go and move on.

Originally posted by Robtard
Really? Now you're editing in? You and your silly games. Let the butthurt go and move on.

Poor guy. Has to desperately edit his listing, and then pretend it didn't happen. Amusing to the rest of us

You do realize that this site uses edit markers right?

Originally posted by Robtard
You do realize that this site using edit markers right?

Sure Rob. You don't have to convince me. Can't tell what's sadder, your inability to spell properly, your constant denial after editing, or your incredibly fast responses.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/59959889.jpg

What did I misspell now? Because you changed my "our" to "out" when playing your little games and both words are spelled correctly. Failed again, keep trying though, your butthurt is hilarious.

edit: "Fast responses", you're replying just as fast to me, see the time-makers. Another fail?

Originally posted by Robtard
What did I misspell now? Because you changed my "our" to "out" when playing your little games and both words are spelled correctly. LoL, failed again, keep trying though, your butthurt is hilarious

edit: "Fast responses", you're replying just as fast to me. Another fail?


No need to convince us you're not crying over there, no matter how many smiley faces you copy me with.

http://blog.bekahbrunstetter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Unknown.jpeg

Just be aware that edit makers exist when trying your silly games.

Sure Rob. Just stop being angry and copying me to show your transparency..

http://quotespictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/its-ok-little-buddy-ive-got-your-back.jpg

*Waits for a similar rebuttal*

Originally posted by Robtard
You and your silly games, I'll leave you to them.

Can we cut out this ridiculous feud in the threads, please?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I was just misled by the title. At first glance, so was I. Perhaps it's news sensationalism we should be decrying. "Democrats Declare War..."

I gotcha declaration right here.

Stories like that rely on people who just read titles.

I was busy with a limited schedule. In different circumstances I would've read the full article, and in these circumstances, I chose to read it at a more convenient time.

I apologize if it seems like I'm getting defensive, but I haven't posted here much and would rather people not get a bad first impression of me.

No worries, I wasn't bashing on you, just pointing out the nature of stories like that.

Dave, this is a bit of a poor showing. Before Q99 gave you some really good practical considerations about the technical phrasing of the law, you dismissed the move as "idiotic." Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I suspect you were considering this a move in some sort of "progressive" editing of the language to forcibly normalize nontraditional relationships. However, even if that were your underlying concern you have yet to give even a single argument about why or how a change in federal writing style could achieve that sort of result. Immediately denouncing the (perceived) goal as idiotic does not actually constitute an argument for why it is such.

Attacking the grammar, style, or speed of another member's posts is basically a conscious derail. (I've never understood your fascination with response time.) I figure that once you make a post consisting entirely of tone-sniping, you've conceded the point.


(As a former law student, shouldn't you know which tactics show the audience/jury that you don't have any content to build a substantive case?)

It was idiotic before Q99 wrote that out, meaning I haven't thought about that, and I gave him his kudos. I would think you out of all people wouldn't complain that someone had an "aha" moment when someone else thought about it. I posted the topic because I didn't think about it. As for Rob, there wasn't an argument involved. I just enjoy watching him misspell words and then backpedal. There was no relevance whatsoever.

No I mean, like, trying to put myself into your shoes at the very beginning of the thread, the only reason for you to be upset is some sort of social engineering like in 1984.

BUT, this change doesn't accomplish anything close to that kind of social manipulation. So, I'm saying that even before Q99 gave you a good reason to make the change, there was no reason to oppose the change.

I wrote that last message v late at night, didn't mean it to be an insult about your behavior AFTER you read Q99's post. Sorry if that was unclear.

I wasn't upset. I thought after skimming through this, it was idiotic. I only posted it to get informed opinions, because I didn't have a valid opinion myself. So it may have been a little presumptuous.

lets just learn from this mistake, grow, and move forward.

http://quotespictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/its-ok-little-buddy-ive-got-your-back.jpg

1. That's a nice picture. Separate from anything else in this thread, I like that picture.

2. Language has the power to change how people think.

I'm still wondering how people can call a thrice-married father of at least four children "Caitlin".

I'm also wondering how people think propaganda actually WORKS in the real world, assuming they think about it at all.

Do they believe the successful campaigns are some major ultra-serious exercise put into people's heads at gunpoint? Or is successful propaganda a series of little things that can be easily laughed off, things that are all but subliminal, below people's full conscious awareness?

it's not subliminal.

successful propaganda is as simple as feeding a group-serving bias by telling their echo-chamber exactly what they want to hear. the facts are irrelevant since most will tend to ignore any valid contradictory points and group-howl dissenting opinions into silence.

thats why threads like this, based on articles written purely to be dishonest and deliberate deceitful, are taken as scripture and are so vehemently defended by the group which the lie serves.

Silly thread.