Christ, I Am Still Learning English!

[sleepy]

I am indeed 60 years old, going on 61, and I can still be very ignorant.
Every year and every so often I suddenly realize the meaning of a word or a phrase that I have been exposed to all of my life without a thought about it.

The other day I realized such a word. The word was "Deliberated", as in, "deciding matters"; as in, "the municipal government deliberated the issues for several hours". As in, "the jury deliberated for several days before reaching their verdict".

What finally dawned on me was in how the meaning of the term "deliberated" appears to be opposite that of the term "Liberated". To be free. That to be "deliberated" is to deny, even momentarily, a liberation. And then I began remembering all of the instances in the press and the media when our government was reported to be deliberating the matters of our laws and, sometimes, our Rights. Not in the spirit of what we are told that we are about mind you, but to the empowerment of the few leaders who deliberate as a practice of their dominance above us. And how 'acceptable' this practice becomes when inserted casually and almost daily by those who represent the truth, 'allegedly on our behalf'.

As there is no government which exists unto itself, and as we who exist in nations pledged to Liberty, I do not believe that our governments have any business deliberating anything. Or anyone, but for trespass which is, by its nature, deliberating.

 

[Coil_Smoke]

Ok now you've got me thinking...how about> delineate... Should mean remove lines from or around whatever. O contraire mon frere. How it is corrupted to mean 'Draw Lines around something?

 

[LeeVanCleef]

LOL! Yeah, I'm relatively sure that "deliberate" isn't supposed to be used the same way "delouse" is. Hey, wanna protect our liberty? Try some of that delousing in DC. You'll have the whole town cleansed of politicians with one city-wide coating of RID.

 

[GSGregg]

I'm with ya, sleeps! To wake up one day and realize that you've ignored all of those opportunities to grasp the meaning or origin of an innocuous word or phrase.....

well, that must really SUCK! (Hee hee)

(and Sister Mary Elephant asks, "Sucks what?")

 

[sleepy]

Add to this (I might be in hot water now)...
Yahoo! had an article yesterday quizzing whether or not Abraham Lincoln actually used the phrase, sic, nation..."under God" in his Gettysburg Address.
Well, these arguments are usually committed by persons who mean to use the traditions of our former representatives as an excuse to legislate their faith against the rest of us, by force of law.

In the Comments section, "Terry" pointed out The Constitution's prohibition against requiring "Tests of Religion" as a condition for serving in public office. Terry in fact Quoted the Clause from The Constitution and made no insults.

Two passersby decided to Vote Thumbs Down against the quote, as though this gesture will void and repeal the clause. As if they were voting in a Democracy against Our Republic (which is where our Rights reside; with The People at the State level) and deciding how things will be in the future in spite of the rest of us.
And I see this Thumbs Down attitude against the protections of The Constitution fairly frequently, and not just from trolls looking for their fix.

 

[Coil_Smoke]

I had this e-mail sent to me by some friends. It asked me to refuse new US coinage because the phrase "In God We Trust" is not on the coins. I was never comfortable with our government requesting support from some unspecified deity. The spirits of the gods reside in the hearts of all living things...That is good enough for me.

P>S> It turns out this is pure U.S. Grade A bullshit. All US coins still have 'In God We Trust' on the rim if not on the face. More ignorant rumor from a dumbed down populace...C_S

http://0.tqn.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/R/m/PresDollar-Stack_t.jpg

 

[sleepy]

Yeah. The original Pledge of Allegiance did not include the phrase, "One Nation Under God", only "One nation. Indivisible. With Liberty and Justice for All".
Eisenhower signed "Under God" into law, in The Pledge and on our money, in order to differentiate us from those 'Godless Commies' during The Cold War. Originally, all school children were obligated to say that "Under God Pledge". The Courts later struck down the requirement.

Congress renews the phrase, "In God We Trust" on our monies every two years. About the only Congressmen who ever voted against this renewal bill was Ron Paul and one or two Libertarians.
All the other Congressmen, no matter they be liberal or conservative, vote for it.

What I note is, that those who swear "Under God" belongs on our money by Tradition don't know what they are talking about. The Separation of Church and State comes from The First Amendment's prohibition against Congress respecting An Establishment of Religion. The term, "An Establishment of Religion" is a legal phrase. It is defined as "An official church Established by Charter of The King", thus becoming "An Establishment", and in post colonial America would include any political empowerment of a church or belief, cause or symbol, by government or by law.
But personal worship at a former Established Church is protected.
This was included in The Constitution to defang The Catholic Church of The Massachusetts Bay Colony. This church was a State Church Chartered by The King with full government powers to collect Tithe as obligatory taxes on the citizens on top of the government's taxes owed by The People; and to arrest and punish those who did not pay the tithe, and was empowered to harass, arrest, torture and execute anyone whom they believed to be a Heretic, all without a trial. The death of the protagonist couple in Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" is a fine example of this injustice. Roger Williams was a Protestant who was accused of Heresy
by that church, so he fled to and founded Rhode Island, an open and free State, so much so that it earned the nickname "Rogues Island" in spite of Williams continued practice as a preacher. He simply did not require obedience of The People for their differences in lifestyles. Interestingly, Rhodes Island / Rogues Island was Chartered by The King.

Churches and their symbols of Authority are traditionally excluded from our government. This is why they have tax-exempt status. The use of "So Help Me God" in The President's Oath of Office is voluntary by consent of The President sworn. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt did not use God or The Bible to take his Oath. He is listed as the only President not to do so.

The actual guarantee of Freedom of Religion comes from The First Amendment's "Peaceable Assembly" clause, which is why the FBI had legal authority to invade The Branch Davidians at Waco, Tx.; for abuse of women and children against their Rights.

"Peaceable Assembly" should protect all peaceable gatherings, though the government often shortsheets us over that, instead preferring churches and political mediocrity to champion the clause, and not anyone else.

P.S. So they eliminated the Tithe and Colonial taxes and replaced them with Federal and State taxes. But looking at the Constitution, I'm not sure the States are entitled to tax. The tax laws originating in The Constitution read as though the feds would collect the taxes and distribute proportionally to the States.

 

[StevOz]

Well you'll never catch up they add new words and change definitions every year!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/new-words/2014-update.htm

 

[sleepy]

I know StevOz, but I am a defender of the principle, that The Constitution must be defined by the standing definitions of the dictionary which they used at the time, circa 1788. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of 1788 is a good friend.

The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788. It was a Leap Year.
Surely this must account for some insulation from the normal flow of corruption!

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

the constitution (and adam smith economics) has got to be one of the most obsolete documents ever, but there's really no going back. but i guess one might as well know all the ins and outs, cuz we're stuck with it.


on a side note, WP has a really neat family tree on indo-european.

i hadn't realised that modern english is a descendent of anglo-frisian west germanic... not that such likely interests many people. :)

 

[sleepy]

Darn it, there was that website on the world history of Canada many years ago, with timelines about how the bastards of London were shipped to Canada to serve as farm boys for The Empire, and The Pope's agreements with Hitler.

But the bookmark was several computer hard drives ago and I can't find this excellent site in Google. Maybe I should go deeper?

Oh, I still love The Constitution. It just has never been respected by the dominant opportunists.

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

well, why should it be? such is by very definition not their concern.

and in the real world, outside of custom and legal precedent , the consty-tu might just be the most irrelevant, damaging document after the bible. especially in proportion to the enormous preoccupation spent upon such bullshit.

don't get me wrong... it's a glorious document that changed the world. totally in the HOF of human history. yet it wound up creating much larger problems (such as entitlement and unsustainability) as it solved (such as injustice towards the inopportune).

 

[pinballdaveh]

THANK YOU GOD FOR ALL THINGS TO BE THANKFULL FOR ON THANKSGIVING.

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

amen.

 

[sleepy]

I like it. :)

But I'm an infrequent ham man myself. No poultry. My Mom grew up on a farm and had incidents with chickens, or apparently did, so she never eats fowl or eggs. And although I have no issues with it myself, I've just never taken to it.

 

[Shockman]

well, why should it be? such is by very definition not their concern.

and in the real world, outside of custom and legal precedent , the consty-tu might just be the most irrelevant, damaging document after the bible. especially in proportion to the enormous preoccupation spent upon such bullshit.

don't get me wrong... it's a glorious document that changed the world. totally in the HOF of human history. yet it wound up creating much larger problems (such as entitlement and unsustainability) as it solved (such as injustice towards the inopportune).

Something can't be both irrelevant and damaging. People can however see the same thing as either one. An idea is what it is. If you misinterpret one of those you will be wrong.

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

Something can't be both irrelevant and damaging. People can however see the same thing as either one. An idea is what it is. If you misinterpret one of those you will be wrong.

welcome back, cutie-pie.

want to dance...?