Risus does have a bit of a point there, the meaning of the word has changed for the vast majority of people and the change was brought about by a minority group, but having said that we (the majority) should have put a stop to it.
USA - Good - Bad and or the Ugly
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Risus does have a bit of a point there, the meaning of the word has changed for the vast majority of people and the change was brought about by a minority group, but having said that we (the majority) should have put a stop to it.
Sure the meaning of ‘gay’ has changed JLM, I am not questioning that. My issue was with Risus saying that the word (gay) was destroyed. It was nothing of the sort; it simply evolved in meaning (as many words do).
That's ironic, Webster lists the homosexual meaning last, whereas generally (I thought) meanings were usually listed in order of their usage. I'm pretty sure whatever context the word "gay" is used in 99% of the population think of that connotation. Anyway I think it's too late to change it now, it's been that way for a good 20 years or more.
hehe I have a friend that works as a quench wench up at the golf course in the summer. I think that's a good term. She's popular.
I worked as a quench wench in a pub in Kelowna for a while, too. Not too much insulting there.
Car grooming is a new one on me. "Trim that moustache for you, Mr Lexus?" May I give you a manicure, Mrs. Silverado?"
You bet Goober, which brings to mind these "preowned" cars they sell these days- just weak minded people's attempt to try to bamboozle the consumer.
According to the online etymology dictionary, M-W used the oldest definition first and the newest definition last.
When I think about it that doesn't surprise me too much, in 1951 Gays could have possibly had their own private jardon as in those days heteros didn't consort with them too much..
A++ Paradox for your post
I have lived half my life in Canada and half in the United States....Paradox has outdone himself with an excellent representation of the here and now between the nations...A+ Five!
While the two are intertwined geographically and historically having been birthed by the same needs and peoples who over the growth of the two nations managed to
retain much of the original ideology and potential development and exploration and immigration issues to be cousins or half-siblings....if not some closer relations than many older nations even in Europe.
There will always be an examination of the differences between the two - the pride and dislike converging into a rambling explanation of reasons behind an individual's acceptance or prejudice - on either side of the 49th.
I rather tend to hold the positives because I love both nations and acknowledge with
joy regardless of economic squabbles and the almost tearful wish of Europe to capture the hearts and economic stimulus of Canada, she remains true to her neighbor to the south - even through major disagreement of the gigantic comedy being played out in the south....such emotional angst going on to view from afar.
We will always have each other and like an elderly married couple feel free to make cranky criticism regarding our differences, exaggerating them in great bounty and
making me laugh at all the picky things people love to dissect in cross-boundary forums. I often think we should have a Canadian/U.S. Olympics with rubber tipped arrows and spaghetti laden muskets on an annual basis to being reality back to the
emotional feelings both nations experience when being stuck to the other one.
I remain steadfast to the one issue which has been forged in my heart and has never let me question my belief..... that there would never be one hour should one of these two great "joined at the hip" nations need the other's assistance, it would be readily given, accomplished and set to right. 9/11 proved my thinking accurate.
Even when the complaints erupt at a later date when things again settle down...
it seems to be an international pastime like some unscored game of north vs south.
Can anyone know how beautiful that is? How some older nations would kill to have such a plentiful and peaceful relationship?
We have been blessed with the bounty of huge parcels of land, intelligent, far-sighted peoples, humans who are willing to work hard and take risk, love to profit from invention and exploration, accept peoples from other lands and give them a hand up in assimilation ...come to the aid of other nations in need...and as angry as it may sit make the readers here respond...
Even with our differences and petty irritations:
There is no doubt we are two as one.
I have lived half my life in Canada and half in the United States....Paradox has outdone himself with an excellent representation of the here and now between the nations...A+ Five!
While the two are intertwined geographically and historically having been birthed by the same needs and peoples who over the growth of the two nations managed to
retain much of the original ideology and potential development and exploration and immigration issues to be cousins or half-siblings....if not some closer relations than many older nations even in Europe.
There will always be an examination of the differences between the two - the pride and dislike converging into a rambling explanation of reasons behind an individual's acceptance or prejudice - on either side of the 49th.
I rather tend to hold the positives because I love both nations and acknowledge with
joy regardless of economic squabbles and the almost tearful wish of Europe to capture the hearts and economic stimulus of Canada, she remains true to her neighbor to the south - even through major disagreement of the gigantic comedy being played out in the south....such emotional angst going on to view from afar.
We will always have each other and like an elderly married couple feel free to make cranky criticism regarding our differences, exaggerating them in great bounty and
making me laugh at all the picky things people love to dissect in cross-boundary forums. I often think we should have a Canadian/U.S. Olympics with rubber tipped arrows and spaghetti laden muskets on an annual basis to being reality back to the
emotional feelings both nations experience when being stuck to the other one.
I remain steadfast to the one issue which has been forged in my heart and has never let me question my belief..... that there would never be one hour should one of these two great "joined at the hip" nations need the other's assistance, it would be readily given, accomplished and set to right. 9/11 proved my thinking accurate.
Even when the complaints erupt at a later date when things again settle down...
it seems to be an international pastime like some unscored game of north vs south.
Can anyone know how beautiful that is? How some older nations would kill to have such a plentiful and peaceful relationship?
We have been blessed with the bounty of huge parcels of land, intelligent, far-sighted peoples, humans who are willing to work hard and take risk, love to profit from invention and exploration, accept peoples from other lands and give them a hand up in assimilation ...come to the aid of other nations in need...and as angry as it may sit make the readers here respond...
Even with our differences and petty irritations:
There is no doubt we are two as one.
Last edited:
Yeah. I agree with Curiosity.
It seems that people have misplaced their competitiveness into negative areas. Competition is great when the subject of it is fun. Done that way it builds a good relationship.
Unfortunately, when the subject of the competition is politics or religion (maybe a few other things), it's negative and builds resentment and even hate sometimes. If people would just step back and look objectively, we'd see how ridiculous the issue of "us or them" is.
It seems that people have misplaced their competitiveness into negative areas. Competition is great when the subject of it is fun. Done that way it builds a good relationship.
Unfortunately, when the subject of the competition is politics or religion (maybe a few other things), it's negative and builds resentment and even hate sometimes. If people would just step back and look objectively, we'd see how ridiculous the issue of "us or them" is.
Ditto, ditto- In all the years I've travelled to the American Norhwest and Nevada, I've never had a bad moment with an American. Well I did once, a cop held me at gunpoint for 30 seconds, until his partner arrived on the scene and said he had the wrong guy. I (freshly bathed, shaven and in clean clothes) was mistaken for a guy who had been prowling and breaking into cars overnight. I never held it against the guy. Maybe his eyesight wasn't quite 20/20.
I'll ditto the ditto of the agreement with Curiosity. Both of these Guys
have either had or have control over a Nuclear Arsenal.
Even with these sobering pictures in mind, of all the nations on the
Earth that we could have as our closest and only neighbour, I'm glad
it's the U.S. of A.
have either had or have control over a Nuclear Arsenal.
Even with these sobering pictures in mind, of all the nations on the
Earth that we could have as our closest and only neighbour, I'm glad
it's the U.S. of A.
Ron, where do you come up with this stuff? Do you keep it stored on your hard drive? You always have the appropriate pic for whatever is going on. It is uncanny.
I'll ask you this then: Who were the forefathers that wrote the declaration of independence imploring their argument to?
God or someone else?
I get the last word tonight.:smile:
Without an absolute moral law, and a moral law giver, the forefathers would have had no justification for their moral outrage towards England. It would have been mere opinion and therefore worthless. Because a moral standard exists however, they had a legitimate claim.
Without an absolute moral law, and a moral law giver, the forefathers would have had no justification for their moral outrage towards England. It would have been mere opinion and therefore worthless. Because a moral standard exists however, they had a legitimate claim.
Alley, the question always comes down to, whose moral standards? Yours? Mine? Those of the Pope? Who decides what is moral and what is not? If you say that Bible decides, that really doesn’t get us any further.
There are many interpretations of the Bible. Some say Bible prohibits abortion, others say it doesn’t. Some say it outlaws homosexuality, others say it doesn’t. Some say Bible forbids women from working outside home (I am sure you have heard of the Titus 2 woman), others say it doesn’t. So whose interpretation are we to accept as moral?
Unless you can specify who decides what are the moral absolutes, any talk of there being absolutes in meaningless.
Moral Law is not necessarily "absolute" and as to your question alleywayzalways, I believe the original contracts among the founders were to the future peoples. I am not a seer nor mind reader nor fortune teller, but these people were dreamers, making an historical move, facing untold hardship, they may have been bargaining with the fates or their Deity...
However when two or more humans get together to begin what they hope is a legitimate cause for the future of their fellow humans, it is natural they would want to put their aims, reasons, hopes, and embryonic law into written and therefore more permanent proof than mere verbal discussion. No doubt they wished to promote it as "moral" to the public - when as a new nation nobody knew what "moral" would be. There were no "kings and/or queens" to dictate morality.
What has transpired since that beginning is how powerful the force is called:
"Freedom of responsibility". Nobody to make excuses to - we are on our own - free to fail or succeed - tremendous pressure, but creates a bountiful life for all
who choose to take the challenge.
I hardly think God was the only "divining" force of all the men, some were not religious at all but adventurers and warriors.
I believe their promise was freedom from or "of" government which has now been ripped from the hearts of many who still believe in the original Constitution. I have learned the kernal of wisdom was the belief in equality of humanity and the right to pursue a plentiful life of satisfaction (or happiness).
The ages have changed many hearts, along with new ideas encountered from open and healthy immigration of people who have lived under tyranny, and a burgeoning population eager to exercise the freedoms promised (previously anyway).
Where the nation is headed or what the future holds may be curtailment of some freedoms because the wealth (not only monetary but fruitful exercise of individuality), is being eroded as a response to a deeply divided two-pronged ideology of thought for the nation as a "whole" (which it is not at the present time).
I hope it will survive - too many depend upon its survival. Personally I will always be grateful the frightening tradition of "royal" has never been introduced...therefore allowing simple countrymen and women to become royal in their own rights.
Last edited:
Someone else. There are two related references to a deity in the US's founding documents, both in the Declaration of Independence, where Jefferson refers to Nature's God in the first paragraph and the Creator (not the Christian deity) in the second, not as a source of moral values but as the source of natural law. Jefferson, like most of the founders, was very much a product of the European Enlightenment; that's Spinoza's idea of god he's writing about. The arguments are directed to the American people and the British crown.
That's right Risus... we're American. That's what we call ourselves and that is what everyone else calls us.
Always have, always will.