Look at how they changed the definition of “vaccine” twice in the last few years…
Here’s another one: … the term “gun” has a very specific meaning and refers solely to any large-calibre, direct-fire, high-velocity, flat-trajectory artillery piece employing an explosive-filled hollowed metal shell or solid bolt as its primary projectile.
It would also seem, that the redefinition of “vaccine” changed the legality, and or legal ramifications of actions taken regarding it. Additionally, it’s manipulation was, I believe, made most desirable because of the way it affected perception, and therefore, actions taken by those expected to do the perceiving.
Sorry to say it because there are a lot of political minded people here which I don’t think there is anything wrong with unless you think democracy is what your political party wants instead of what the American people but that goes both ways even though we don’t want to admit it.
I wonder if we are as much in agreement as I think we are. Your words prompted the following thoughts:
That’s why we should be a nation of laws agreed upon in the prescribed way. Give either party too much power and too little accountability, and you get the same result. Even a new party that started out with perfect ethics would corrupt without the checks and balances, without accountability.
The constitution was written in a specific era, but not for a specific era, it was written to address the failings of human nature, which remains as constant as the basic physical form it is housed in. Anyone, no matter what party, ideology, or religion, that believes they are above that, is the one who represents a danger.
Unchecked power has a unique ability to corrupt the very best of intentions, and the very best of people. The constitution was written in recognition of that, and that is a key reason that it should be kept, intact and undiluted.
It was recognized at the time, that if the people themselves became sufficiently corrupted, there would then be no way to prevent collapse.
Contains the same? basic opinion, put in different words?
As a result of the above opinion, I would be JUST as uncomfortable, no matter WHO was redefining things!
My fear is what the Supreme Court may rule in the future.
@Dave4928 You express a fear shared by almost everyone, on both sides, but why should this be?
One would think the litmus test for a supreme court Judge would be their batting average in terms of getting it right with rulings that stood the test of their constitutionality and established law. It has come to pass however, that so common is the perception that you can change law by packing the supreme court. that we see epic battles over who gets nominated and confirmed.
Interpretations, that are expected to be reliably loyal to a given party ideology, are the reason for it, which then causes people to conclude the constitution is no longer the guide, but instead personal ideology or party loyalty. Ruling votes that regularly, and with some reliability, split down party lines, do not help.
When the people press and fight for nominees based on faithfulness to a cause, rather than to the constitution, for appointment to the supreme court, and demand their representatives do the same, it suggests a corruption of the people, the kind the founders knew they could write no law or document to prevent.
Ethical voters, knowledgeable and involved, could keep their freedom secure, and keep the nation unassailable from without. But voters who discovered they could vote themselves money ( or social advantage) from the national treasury and were willing to vote for the corruption that would give it to them, were the one disease the founders knew they could not protect freedom from. When personal gain becomes the primary motivation for votes, instead of maintaining the integrity of freedom and justice for everyone, both justice and freedom will soon be lost as corruption begets corruption, and it begins to run away with itself.
To protect and defend the constitution is a part of many oaths of office, this is because the people CAN change that constitution if they so desire, through a process that was established to help insure it truly was " the will of the people", and not the will of an advantaged few, who would likely be holding power at the time.
Reinterpret and redefine, are backdoor hacks, used by an influential and advantaged few, to change crucial fundamentals without properly consulting the people first.
I think I use the same laws of physics to psychology. The problem is people have emotions.
We do, and if we let ourselves be ruled by them, we inevitably go astray.
We have the ability to discern or figure thing out.
I believe the best example is the phrase “I did not have sex”. But, Mr. President, what then is “oral sex”?
ie: their, there, they’re – classically mis-used in postings. Others are out there as well.
My wife is a linguist. I am a carpenter there’s definitely a lack of communication but we both know enough to get by and we have to be tolerated of each other.
Innocent mistakes and varying degrees of ability should certainly be tolerated, but is that what is at issue?
A cool breeze, and sub-zero temperatures born on a stiff wind, are just varying degrees of the same thing. None the less, the danger of the one, versus the danger of the other, is drastically different.
Good Insight! Like the term “Well Regulated” means in good working order, NOT controlled as some ■■■■■■■■ think!
The more aware of this I become, the more deeply flawed I find many common understandings to now be, some of them recognized as simply as remembering the history I was taught, and wondering, wait a minute, where did that “little ica age” go? did it get forgotten, or did they decide it never happened?
It’s not a conclusion, it’s just the question, where did it go, and how did it fit?
In the world of 2022, IDIOCRACY is alive and well and ruining things at every turn.
“tolerant” of each other.
(grinning, ducking, and running)
There is some truth to that with the violence that’s somehow become acceptable, provided of course, your violent in support of the “correct” side. I can’t say I’ve never seen anything like this before, because of course students of history HAVE seen it before, that’s what’s so deeply concerning.
A good example is the word “gay”. When I was young it meant happy and the word “queer” was used to describe a homosexual. Now the word queer isn’t used anymore and all homosexuals are called gay. Think on the impact of that change alone. The person no longer unusual but happy.
It’s been going on a long time and it’s not going to change.