They had different words and stuff back then
12 Responses to “They had different words and stuff back then”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 31st, 2010 at 10:53 am
See also:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/12/the-constitution-is-very-important.html
December 31st, 2010 at 11:36 am
The part where he says that the constitution does not mean anything is especially impressive.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:55 pm
That was probably one of the most breathtaking moments of idiocy I have ever witnessed. I couldn’t decide whether or not to be angry with Klien or to pity him for being dropped on his head so many times as a child.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:07 pm
It was also written by Chaucer, so it’s really difficult to understand all that Old English.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:49 pm
The proof of his statement is that Ezra Klein is not 100 years old, and I certainly understand him perfectly.
Also, because he floats like wood, he is a witch.
And thus should be burned.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
“Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is an American blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Newsweek, and a contributor to MSNBC”
That bit right there explains a lot about the PoS.
December 31st, 2010 at 3:04 pm
treefroggy, Dude. You’re thinking of Chaucer’s other-shire’s-ende-of-Engelonde contemporary, the Pearl Poet. Chaucer wrote Middle English, and weel he wote.
By Article the Third, I’m pretty sure they’d moved up to Spenserian.
December 31st, 2010 at 4:26 pm
It’s pretty simple actually, liberal dogma holds that any document with the “long s” in it is a “living” document.
😉
December 31st, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Dude, I’ve got socks older than you.
December 31st, 2010 at 6:31 pm
I am really wondering if I am the only one that actually listened to what he said. He said reading it aloud is a gimmick, which is true. He said “it” is not binding, which based on the context, is referring to reading it aloud, which is also true. Then he said the wording is confusing. Since most cannot be bothered to become familiar with the way the language was used then, that is also true. It’s also true that many people will be lazy and interpret the Constitution to mean what they want, rather than learn what it really means.
Seriously, can you look at what the anti-gun people do with the word “regulated” and say that people don’t twist the words to mean what they want?
December 31st, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Ezra Klein is indeed a wonk, a very naive wonk.
What he said, in an absurdly non-judgmental way, is that the Constitution is ambiguous in that it can mean whatever someone wishes it to mean.
What he should have said, is that the Constitution is easily distorted to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. That’s true, and gun owners have been victimized by such distortion. Look at how easily the anti’s, such as the dissenting justices in McDonald, read the Second Amendment to apply only to militias. We succeeded there by only one vote.
Look how Marxists had stood the Second Amendment on its head to make it a crime instead of a right. The Constitution does not apply itself; it has to be applied by people. It takes the will to fight to keep the Constitution meaning what it says, because it can be twisted to mean otherwise as easily as such insubstantial things as words can be twisted, and that is far too easily.
January 1st, 2011 at 3:03 pm
It is very hard, for progressive democrats and republicans to understand, because they try at every turn to find holes though the fence that the continental congress had sought to erect.