Posted on 06/26/2008 4:47:35 AM PDT by secret garden
In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of "Word for the Day".
minatory \MIN-uh-tor-ee\, adjective
Threatening; menacing.
Example sentences:
He was often observed peeping through the bars of a gate and making minatory gestures with his small forefinger while he scolded the sheep with an inarticulate burr, intended to strike terror into their astonished minds.
-- George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss
Then, abruptly on the last page, he lapses into a kinder, gentler tone, as if wanting to leave us with a less minatory impression of himself.
-- Pankaj Mishra, "The Ground Beneath Her Feet", New Statesman, April 9, 1999
. . .state-inspired guerrilla and terrorist campaigns; maritime blockades and minatory troop concentrations; continuous threats and boycotts, etc.
-- Benny Morris, "The Core of the Conflict", New York Times, March 25, 1990
Etymology:
Minatory derives from Latin minatorius, from minari, "to threaten." It is related to menace.
The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day. The Review threads are linked for your edification. ;-)
Practice makes perfect.....post on....
Review Thread One: Word For The Day, Thursday 11/14/02: Raffish (Be SURE to check out posts #92 and #111 on this thread!)
Review Thread Two: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/14/03: Roister
Review Thread Three: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/28/03: Obdurate
WFB's attempt to emulate us ; ) No pushing at the door please!
Rise and shine!
Yesterday the Supreme Court decided that the law should not take a minatory stance towards child rapists, lest they feel punished for their actions.
Risen...........shining may take a while.
Is a minaTory the British version of a RINO?
My guess is a 5-4 with a fractured majority. Kennedy writing for the majority holding the second as a fundamental right and that regulations are to be subject to the 'strict scrutiny' standard.
Heck, that's the best we can hope for these days.
The minatory admonitions of the anthropogenic global warming alarmists has such a large bovine excrement factor I think such material should be called minotaury.
Obama makes threats; he’s so minatory
Tells McCain: “Don’t be discriminatory
You can never attack
Or tell people I’m black”
Barack is the “good guy” in his story
another one who stayed at a holiday inn express last night.... LMAO!!!
Lotta people like that. I got a lecture on another thread a few days ago about organic vitamins, colloidal silver and various dietary regimens to totally cure diabetes.
OK barrister, tell me where I am wrong.
stare decisis is fo suckas.
practicing law or medicine without a license oughta be illegal. oh wait, IT IS! ; ) freepers are infamous for thinking they know it all. though i think far more of them think of law as a HOBBY. right, neo?
know nothing about heller, it isn’t my particular area of interest. have been too busy to read anything this week, running to and fro with kids needing to be places, after leaving my office. xshub is on a soapbox on the child rape case. he wants me to read it so we can discuss and i haven’t had a minute to do so. he had xsteen as a captive audience in the car on the way home from their office yesterday and he mounts up on the soapbox and starts his disseration on it. she said, i love how daddy is preaching to the dang choir when he goes off on this stuff to me, and he’s screaming his head off! LOL! he was sure Mr O would be talking about it and he wasn’t. xshub said HE is available to mr. O to go on and discuss it! more often than not when watching mr O [he is usually just in the room while xsteen and i watch] he is busy telling the guests what they SHOULD be saying and what Mr O has NOT thought of.
Con law is a bit of a hobby of mine.
Besides interpreting the Constitution is the responsibility of everybody, and all 3 branches. It’s just the that the SCOTUS has made it ridiculously hard with their ridiculous ‘balancing tests’ and levels of scrutiny, etc.
I believe in the Fred Thompson school of the Constitution; “it means what it says”
Unfortunately, Kennedy is not the sharpest crayon in the box, and it is alarming that he is the swing vote. i am thinking Nino and pals are more than a little frustrated.
It used to be Sandy’s world and we were just living in it. Now it is Tony Kennedy’s.
Last year all the 5-4’s were to the good side. This year the 5-4’s are to the bad side. So I think it depends on the types of cases.
I forget who said it but a Supreme Court Justice needs a tremendous intellect and a small ego. Kennedy has the reverse.
OMG only 10 min. are we counting down? i saw there was a live thread.
Would Britian’s last prime minister be more conservative if he were a minitory representing the British, rather than from Blair’s Labour party representing France’s EU?
5-4 in favor of private gun owners.........YEAH!!!
-we need one more SCOTUS appointment.
Woohooo!
And Nino wrote it.
A+ for you!
Stevens and Ginsburg have got to go! A for you.
You can do it. Take your time.
Maybe Stevens will retire?
A for you.
By claiming what the GOP is planning to do, he can write himself in as the victim, yet again. He lumps his inexperience in with his skin color and acts as though to attack one is to automatically be a racist. It is annoying. A+ for you.
I don’t know how you can stand that blowhard. He never asks tough questions but sees himslef as quite the interrogator.
we find him amusing. xsteen loves the body language segment and xsbrownie loves the culture quiz. i can overlook his being a blowhard, he really doesn’t try to pretend he isn’t one.
Clever. A for you. I have to run in a few minutes kiddos. I have a CPR class so no chest pains while I’m gone.
That ain’t right. By my math, 17 doesn’t go into 60.
that is a grandma and that’s just SICK.
Lock her up and throw away the key.
I can’t recall any scandal but the boobs look home grown.
xshub said today is the traditional day to quit and no one has said you ain’t gonna have ME to kick around anymore....
now that we have the RIGHT to own guns we need the right to use them to defend ourselves.....
The best thing about this ruling is that Scalia essentially says that self defense is a fundamental human right.
Rush: Iraq is so safe a CBS Newsbabe can have 2 affairs there...
very twisted
total hobag.
yes, but she is “not guilty”....
yes i am quite sure you think that : )
Looks pretty minatory out there in suburbia . . . .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2036226/posts
HOney, I was out of the house and down at the Moose Lodge for well over an hour before this post of yours.
After tonight one thing or another will happen, either I will never have to deal with the place again after Tuesday, or it will basically become my life. I'm not sure which I owuld prefer.
From the Supreme Court Heller Decision on 26 June 2008:
Justice Scalia, in his opinion, wrote: “what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
He also stated “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” (emphasis added)
This is simply a brilliant statement that boils the issue down to its most basic element -- that of a specifically enumerated right retained by THE PEOPLE, not by the states or some other collective group. The statements that I have seen quoted from the dissent span the gamut between inane and idiotic. For example, John Paul Stevens wrote in the dissent that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He added that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Thus, Judge Stevens demonstrates a complete ignorance of the fact that "over 200 years ago the framers (most definitely) made a (very deliberate) choice to (severely) limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian" life in almost every way. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to delineate the very few and very limited and very specific powers of the government, and to assert that the People retained the right to decide for themselves how to regulate their own lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.