Two Americas, was John Edwards right?

The question isn't asked in the sense that Edwards meant it.  It is asked in the sense that some of us are not talking to each other, but at each other.  One America is using different type of language to talk at the other America about the same subject.

If the word meanings get changed, how can you have a meaningful discussion?  The words have to mean the same, and the language has to be stable.  Therefore, you don't change the meaning of a word to hide its true meaning.  If you do so, you are not communicating, you are deceiving.  Deceiving isn't communication.  Enemies don't talk, they fight.  It can begin with thoughts, then proceed to words, and finally end in violence.

Language are the tools of thought.  There has to be a gold standard of language.  "Gay" doesn't mean homosexual.  It means what it meant before it was redefined into what it didn't mean before.  It means carefree.  It means happy.  It didn't mean homosexual 40 years ago.  Homosexual is homosexual and should always remain so, as any other word.

I know Rush has talked about this, but I never really noticed how much of this goes on in politics.  Besides the issue of homosexuality, there is abortion.   In that case, the issue is about abortion, not choice.  It gets redefined into something that it is not.  It's an abortion of a developing infant, or to put it more directly, infanticide.  Even abortion can be thought of as a redefinition of infanticide.  People are not comfortable with killing babies.  At least not yet.  Abortion is used in place of infanticide.  Choice is used instead of abortion.

Another example is climate change.  The premise is that humans can change the climate at will.  Climate was previously thought to be an act of God.  Not anymore, thanks to the new wordsmiths of political speak.  What "climate change" really means, if the words were honest, is an increase in regulations and taxes.

Gun-control is allegedly meant to increase public safety, but it doesn't do that.  What it really means, if results are any indication, is less public-safety.  It should be called "criminal enablement".  You aren't going to stop criminals with new laws, especially more that didn't work in the first place.  If a criminal uses a gun in the commission of a crime, the only way to stop him is to bring greater force than what he is able to bring.  Gun-control doesn't control what needs to be controlled, which is the criminal behavior at the time it is instigated.  You do that by bringing more guns to the scene than the criminal can.

To develop this further, "investments" are taxes.  "Fairness" likewise.  It leads back to taxes, it must mean taxes.  A thing is what it is.  A tax is a tax is a tax.  A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, but a tax is always a tax.

In summary, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be a duck".  If you can redefine the language according to your convenience, the duck can be an elephant.  But the elephant in the room isn't convenient, so a duck has be substituted instead.  That's because the politicians know that their ideas aren't popular, so the right words can't escape their lips, they need deceptive new words to express unpopular ideas.

Update:

Yes, I forgot this one.  Illegal aliens used to mean what they are: illegal aliens.  But not according to Geraldo.