Tweet
I think SamiAutoSam is one of the most valuable members here, simply because no one else treads so well combines knowledge with being a poop stirrer. One of my best friends, alas now deceased, was just like that - he could come up with the dangedest conspiracy theories. Your first reaction was Yeah, right. But a second later you were thinking Hey Now Wait A Minute, and then you had to actually stop and consider it to come up with some counter example or proof of it being wrong. Both he and SAS make you think.
Thus it is with SAS's recent thread on Hillary not being eligible for the presidency because the Constitution refers to "he".
Now my first reaction was like most people. Oh Come On Sam, stop being ridiculous. But then I got to wondering ...
one of our complaints about Second Amendment revisionists is their continuing wilful disregard for the original meaning of "keep", "bear", and "arms". Yet here we are all telling SAS that we have to interpret "je" as some modern day neutral pronoun, not in the context of when it was written.
Did the founding fathers always use "male" when they intended to be geneder-specific, and use "he" as gender neutral?
Would the founding fathers have considered it reasonable to let women vote, let alone run for political office?
Were there any women in public office back then, even city council or mayor or whatever they did back then?
SAS, than you again for stirring the chamber pot. I have said it before, and I will say it many more times, you may be a kook, but you are my kind of kook, and I am very glad to be on the same forum with you.
Thus it is with SAS's recent thread on Hillary not being eligible for the presidency because the Constitution refers to "he".
Now my first reaction was like most people. Oh Come On Sam, stop being ridiculous. But then I got to wondering ...
one of our complaints about Second Amendment revisionists is their continuing wilful disregard for the original meaning of "keep", "bear", and "arms". Yet here we are all telling SAS that we have to interpret "je" as some modern day neutral pronoun, not in the context of when it was written.
Did the founding fathers always use "male" when they intended to be geneder-specific, and use "he" as gender neutral?
Would the founding fathers have considered it reasonable to let women vote, let alone run for political office?
Were there any women in public office back then, even city council or mayor or whatever they did back then?
SAS, than you again for stirring the chamber pot. I have said it before, and I will say it many more times, you may be a kook, but you are my kind of kook, and I am very glad to be on the same forum with you.
.
Comment