No thanks; I’ve heard his voice enough to last me several lifetimes and I aim to bask in complete Trumplessness as soon as possible.
I am well aware that he sounded more coherent and marginally sane 30-40 years ago… but he was still the same shitty person, even back then.
Shitty, but he didn’t sound like a stupid 2 year old…
Yeah but he sounded like a stupid 10 year old.
Hey, you think that’s bad Irish doesn’t even have words for “yes” and “no”!
Cool!
According to wikipedia,
English once used four forms: yea and yes, nay and no.
I would not here note by the way that Tyndale here translateth no for nay , for it is but a trifle and mistaking of the Englishe worde : saving that ye shoulde see that he whych in two so plain Englishe wordes, and so common as in naye and no can not tell when he should take the one and when the tother, is not for translating into Englishe a man very mete. For the use of these two wordes in aunswering a question is this. No aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative. As for ensample if a manne should aske Tindall himselfe: ys an heretike meete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? Lo to thys question if he will aunswere trew Englishe, he must aunswere nay and not no . But and if the question be asked hym thus lo: is not an heretike mete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? To this question if he will aunswere trewe Englishe, he must aunswere no and not nay . And a lyke difference is there betwene these two adverbs ye and yes . For if the question bee framed unto Tindall by the affirmative in thys fashion. If an heretique falsely translate the New Testament into Englishe, to make his false heresyes seem the word of Godde, be his bokes worthy to be burned ? To this questyon asked in thys wyse, yf he will aunswere true Englishe, he must aunswere ye and not yes . But now if the question be asked him thus lo; by the negative. If an heretike falsely translate the Newe Testament into Englishe to make his false heresyee seme the word of God, be not hys bokes well worthy to be burned ? To thys question in thys fashion framed if he will aunswere trewe Englishe he may not aunswere ye but he must answere yes , and say yes marry be they, bothe the translation and the translatour, and al that wyll hold wyth them.
Thomas_More The Confutation of Tyndale’s Answer
The article goes onto suggest that More’s pedantry is in fact wrong. So very embarrassing.
FWIW Eugene Debs ran in the 1920 election from prison.
I loved that! Plus: olden times they were shite at writing were they not? I get that he studies classical rhetoric and the format requires those repetitions and substitutions but fuck is it long winded.
Our beer fridge normally has a good supply of Labatt Blue and/or Molson Canadian, but we can’t get ketchup chips on this side of the river, and it is a point of consternation for me. 
Nothing pairs better with a hot dog than ketchup chips.
this, right now, may be the golden age of concise writing
we all know we only get a few seconds before the reader’s eye is going to move on
…yeah. Mixing various things up. Early 70’s was Nixon laying some groundwork for repugnanticans to be seen as anti-abortion to appeal to Catholics.
Early 80’s was when RayGun Ronnie made it a big issue running against Carter.
it’s conciseness’ golden age. in seconds, readers move on. 
tl;dr
Great start for Biden/Harris cabinet choices:
Concision: conciser than conciseness.
brevity
