Ask500

To quote you from your first comment on this page, "I take this question to be about religion / the paranormal." Have you changed your mind? If not, are you contradicting yourself?

I am not the one trying to redefine a word someone else used; I am defending my own phrase, "spiritually vision-impaired". The adjective you yourself commented on, "spiritually", clearly identifies which meaning of "vision" I intended, so my meaning was perfectly clear. In English, you can't assume one definition when the context clearly suggests another.

> "I call nonsense. You're pairing an adjective which is inVISIble by definition (spiritually) with the word vision."

So does the dictionary, as proven in my now-hidden post above.

I used the word "vision" in its intangible context. Definitions of words other than "vision" fail to address the issue. You seem to assert "vision" always involves a retina. Take a particularly close look at #5:

"vision - n.

1a. The faculty of sight; eyesight: poor vision.

1b. Something that is or has been seen.

2. Unusual competence in discernment or perception; intelligent foresight: a leader of vision.

3. The manner in which one sees or conceives of something.

4. A mental image produced by the imagination.

5. The mystical experience of seeing as if with the eyes the supernatural or a supernatural being.

6. A person or thing of extraordinary beauty."

http://www.answers.com/vision

The first two relevant definitions of "visionary" from your own link convey what I intended:

"Visionary - n.

* a person of unusually keen foresight.

* a person who sees visions."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/visionary

If this is a word-twisting debate, I will respectfully withdraw from it now; I don't usually find them very productive.

Many implications:

Peacefully abolish the current U.S. Constitution in favor of another? Not likely; Yanks would amend it more if they hated it.

Military overthrow of the U.S. government? Doesn't seem likely from abroad, nor from domestic militias energized by economic hardship.

Pres. Obama pulling a Julius Caesar? Of course not; but if so, there would likely be a Revolutionary War II to restore the current Constitution.

Apocalypse 2012? Couldn't tell you, ask a prophet.

If forced to project from current national mood trends, it seems that bailout backlash may lead to some majority party losses in Congress in 2010, but Obama will still be re-elected in 2012, with a successor elected in 2016 under the current U.S. Constitution.

I believe 2016 could be as heated as the 2000 U.S. election if enough people believe Obama's economic policies have done more harm than good, but no government overthrow.