I see that kaveman and FatWhiteMan personify exactly the mindset that is Teabaggery.
Klein knows that the constitution is the "Law of the land". What he's saying is that the reading of the document by Rep. Bonerfortherich does not confer any sort of power or legitimacy on him or his party of GOD. Well, as we all know, it's much more fun to be fauxraged than to be probitive.
"What he's saying is that the reading of the document by Rep. Bonerfortherich does not confer any sort of power or legitimacy on him or his party of GOD."
Incorrect.
He says "IT HAS no binding authority over anything."
The word "it" refers to an object(the constitution) not an action(the reading of said constitution).
Followed by the word "has" which is referencing past tense, not the FUTURE action of reading the document.
If he had meant what your think he meant, then he would have said...
THAT WOULD not have any binding authority over anything.
Very, very different from...
IT HAS no binding authority over anything.
Nice try, but basic grammar foils your hypothesis.
The Constitution has no binding power over anything???
ReplyDeleteWOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, the Constitution, the cornerstone of democracy of the entire free world, is a "gimmick".
ReplyDeleteWhat a loser, this Ezra nut is a real tool.
I see that kaveman and FatWhiteMan personify exactly the mindset that is Teabaggery.
ReplyDeleteKlein knows that the constitution is the "Law of the land". What he's saying is that the reading of the document by Rep. Bonerfortherich does not confer any sort of power or legitimacy on him or his party of GOD. Well, as we all know, it's much more fun to be fauxraged than to be probitive.
"What he's saying is that the reading of the document by Rep. Bonerfortherich does not confer any sort of power or legitimacy on him or his party of GOD."
ReplyDeleteIncorrect.
He says "IT HAS no binding authority over anything."
The word "it" refers to an object(the constitution) not an action(the reading of said constitution).
Followed by the word "has" which is referencing past tense, not the FUTURE action of reading the document.
If he had meant what your think he meant, then he would have said...
THAT WOULD not have any binding authority over anything.
Very, very different from...
IT HAS no binding authority over anything.
Nice try, but basic grammar foils your hypothesis.
Yeah Demo, it is a real "gimmick" for Congress to actually read something that they are swearing an oath to protect and defend. You got us there. Wow.
ReplyDeleteRight on, Demo.
ReplyDeleteDemo,
ReplyDeleteThen what does the "its hard to read" have to do with your interpretation?