In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
This seems totally normal.
Of course it's not 'normal' to have a biblical worldview which currently runs counter to the Spirit of the Age.
(Not that I agree with everything Pastor Wilson says.)
Of course it's not 'normal' to have a biblical worldview which currently runs counter to the Spirit of the Age.
(Not that I agree with everything Pastor Wilson says.)
He isn't wrong that too many people who don't contribute to the system have voting rights.
Voting should be reserved for people who own land/property, pay above a certain tax threshold, or have served in the military.
He isn't wrong that too many people who don't contribute to the system have voting rights.
Voting should be reserved for people who own land/property, pay above a certain tax threshold, or have served in the military.
That doesn't work when you have a literate population and mass media and you need a broad tax base.
He isn't wrong that too many people who don't contribute to the system have voting rights.
Voting should be reserved for people who own land/property, pay above a certain tax threshold, or have served in the military.
I’m starting to understand your view when I link this with the genocide in South Africa .
Apartheid was a beautiful regime wasnt ?
He isn't wrong that too many people who don't contribute to the system have voting rights.
Voting should be reserved for people who own land/property, pay above a certain tax threshold, or have served in the military.
This is the dumbest suggestion i've seen in a while, outside of space lasers torching vehicles in New York.
Forget that, why do you think that would be a good idea?
South Africa was much safer under Apartheid yes, it wasn't necessarily discriminatory against anyone. All it means is separation.
No, idiot, that's not all it means.
This is the dumbest suggestion i've seen in a while, outside of space lasers torching vehicles in New York.
Forget that, why do you think that would be a good idea?
If you don't have skin in the game and contribute to the system you really have no right to decide how the system operates.
If you don't own a piece of the country, contribute to the government being operated, or defend this nation you should have no right to vote. We can go even further and point towards the tax inequality suffered by the top 1% earners today who pay over 40% of federal income taxes. Their vote should count more than a bus driver.
If you don't have skin in the game and contribute to the system you really have no right to decide how the system operates.If you don't own a piece of the country, contribute to the government being operated, or defend this nation you should have no right to vote. We can go even further and point towards the tax inequality suffered by the top 1% earners today who pay over 40%
It’s ok to not favor democracy I suppose .
I’m not surprise a smart guy like you don’t understand why it’s not A good idea .
Because you yourself not being subject to be unable to vote is fine because u fit those categories for now , until u don’t anymore …..
And u know what happens afterwards ? You lose everything .
When you start targeting citizens to eradicate rights , especially fundamental rights like voting , u enter a very dangerous time .
Here is quote coming from a real life experience .
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
This is the dumbest suggestion i've seen in a while, outside of space lasers torching vehicles in New York.
Forget that, why do you think that would be a good idea?
the "dumbest suggestion" is how democracy developed in the west and worked for centuries, a period in time when the west won everything worldwide and was by far the most succesful set of societies and organizations by far the world had even seen up to that time.
And even john stuart mill, considered a "radical progressive" 2 centuries ago, considered the notion of anyone living on state welfare having the right to vote a deranged, absurd one.
the "dumbest suggestion" is how democracy developed in the west and worked for centuries, a period in time when the west won everything worldwide and was by far the most succesful set of societies and organizations by far the world had even seen up to that time.And even john stuart mill, considered a "radical progressive" 2 centuries ago, considered the notion of anyone living
These people have no idea who John Stuart Mill is. I wouldn't waste your time
Lincoln usually tops the list of "best presidents" for most historians/analysts, and often enough for the general public as well.
When he was elected, only white men over 21 had the right to vote, and in 5 states (3 of which Lincoln carried), you had to be a net tax payer to have the right to vote (MA, PA, RI).
When Washington was elected ofc, only people who owned real estate could vote in most states. And state and federal welfare didn't exist as a concept.
the patriarchy...
Lincoln usually tops the list of "best presidents" for most historians/analysts, and often enough for the general public as well.When he was elected, only white men over 21 had the right to vote, and in 5 states (3 of which Lincoln carried), you had to be a net tax payer to have the right to vote (MA, PA, RI).When Washington was elected ofc, only people who owned real estate co
He tops the list of best presidents because he ruthlessly and expeditiously murdered treasonous slavery-loving Southerners.
On top of this it’s kind of evidence that even if you took away the right to vote from the people you want to take away the right to vote from, it’ll just get reinstated anyway. Turns out people will generally remove barriers to voting even if it makes their vote count less, and have that happen enough and it will become universal.
He tops the list of best presidents because he ruthlessly and expeditiously murdered treasonous slavery-loving Southerners.On top of this it’s kind of evidence that even if you took away the right to vote from the people you want to take away the right to vote from, it’ll just get reinstated anyway. Turns out people will generally remove barriers to voting even if i
Remember i was commenting the idea that a limited franchise was "the dumbest suggestion ever". It literally was the law of the land when the west was at it's best worldwide, and when the best president in american history got elected.
You can claim a universal franchise is preferable. you can't claim a limited franchise is indefensible or "dumb" or that it necessarily produces bad outcomes.
Remember i was commenting the idea that a limited franchise was "the dumbest suggestion ever". It literally was the law of the land when the west was at it's best worldwide, and when the best president in american history got elected.You can claim a universal franchise is preferable. you can't claim a limited franchise is indefensible or "dumb" or that it necessarily produces
They didn’t have the benefit of empirical evidence of it being fine and most countries converging on it. So our evidence is different retrospectively than they had prospectively.
They didn’t have the benefit of empirical evidence of it being fine and most countries converging on it. So our evidence is different retrospectively than they had prospectively.
or it is physically impossible to remove it once in play because of obvious reasons (you don't want to make those people permanently voting for the other party if you fail), so we have no element to judge if it would be better to go back, other than how it worked when it wasn't in place.
it wouldn't be the first time that extending something good in some quantity to everyone without limits ends up being worse than keeping it limited
He tops the list of best presidents because he ruthlessly and expeditiously murdered treasonous slavery-loving Southerners.On top of this it’s kind of evidence that even if you took away the right to vote from the people you want to take away the right to vote from, it’ll just get reinstated anyway. Turns out people will generally remove barriers to voting even if it makes thei
Most Republicans are a fan of the Republican President Abraham Lincoln and condemn the Democrat South in that era.
The GOP Freed the slaves. The Democrats created Planned Parenthood with the goal of killing black people
dont forget
Most Republicans are a fan of the Republican President Abraham Lincoln and condemn the Democrat South in that era.
The GOP Freed the slaves. The Democrats created Planned Parenthood with the goal of killing black people
dont forget
You would have voted against Lincoln 100%, and the Southern Democrats that you are crapping on became part of the Republican party lol
You would have voted against Lincoln 100%, and the Southern Democrats that you are crapping on became part of the Republican party lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4o...
Carol Swain has debunked that nonsense for decades now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4o...
Carol Swain has debunked that nonsense for decades now
There’s nothing to debunk. The Republican party is where people who want to repeal the civil rights act call home, not the democratic party.
No everyone alive today associated with the civil rights movement is somehow getting it wrong and non educated southern whites who straight up tell you that they have a low opinion of black people would have somehow been against the expansion of slavery or confederate succession despite the fact that that still fly the confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage.
There’s nothing to debunk. The Republican party is where people who want to repeal the civil rights act call home, not the democratic party.
I'm pretty sure it's the GOP that would argue more that everyone should be treated equally whereas the Democrats are more for some people getting preferential treatment based on immutable characteristics.
