I have trouble buying this because it sounds so unreasonably insane.

Well, it has been denied and debunked so there’s no reason to believe it.

My bad Lawlight I forgot about this thread.

anyway, as of now it’s a developing story, and the Democratic Party is asking for a proper explanation behind this. With conflicting reports, I’m wondering if they’re saying they’ll still use the terms regardless, or if there was a misunderstanding

something like this Is serious. It’s past politics - this can potentially prevent lives from being saved

I’d say it’s aggressive neutralism and not anti religion. A school banning Muslims from taking a 15 minute break to pray may seem as though they’re hating on religion, but truth is they can’t play favorites. It can be a bit unfair, but I’d rather have that than a religious nut complain because someone from a different religion gets to do X when they can’t 

He is using the middle eastern governorship model, works great for them

So then this is more fake news?

monocle_layton said: Aeolus451 said: Trump is trolling progressives with that and it will probably push a good bit of them to act a fool. What? Of course it’ll piss people off. It’s literally banning key terms that will make a plethora of subjects exponentially more difficult to write about (or even write about).

Not too bad
“evidence-based,” “science-based,” founded on good science/evidence
“vulnerable,” hmm ... "susceptible"
“entitlement,” thing you are entitled to
“diversity,” diverseness/heterogeneity
“transgender,” genderbended
“fetus.” OVERGROWN EMBRYO (capslock mandatory)

OP got busted again with fake news... it seems 'genocide' is still not coming. A recommendation from bureaucrats do avoid misusing (not banning) spurious pseudo-scientific buzz words in budget proposal where they never belonged in the first place.

"These, I am told, are avoided because they are frequently misused or regularly overused in departmental documents ...The style guide does not prohibit the use of these terms, but it says they should be used only when alternatives (which it proposes in some cases) cannot be.
Did it make sense to suggest avoiding these terms? “Entitlement” really isn’t a term that should be used in congressional-justification documents (where “mandatory” is the technical, if actually less correct, term of art)
In public health, after all, “vulnerable” has a distinct definition, and there are some CDC programs that couldn’t really avoid using the term in justifying their budget requests"


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454752/cdc-did-not-ban-words-yuval-levin

Your source contains a good rebuttal ... but please remind me what the predicted "genocide" was. 

I think it's more so the reaction that "they are out here trying to kill us" like you'll see on social media (and places like ResetEra) in reference to anything the Trump administration does. In my mind, it's the hyperbolic equivalent of comparing Trump to Hitler or his decision making to Fascism.