They didn't let women vote either. Oh yeah -- we were legal chattels too. D'oh! Does he propose going back to that system as well? (rhetorical question)
Unless you are pregnant and in the kitchen, the Tea Party isn't interested in your rhetorical questions Debra!
"If you are a property owner, you actually have a vested stake in the community. And if you are not a property owner... you know, I'm sorry, but property owners have a bit more of a vested stake in the community than not-property [sic] owners do."Hmm... why the apology, Mr Judson?Anyway, here's an idea: following Mr Judson's logic, the more property one owns the more "more of a vested stake in the community" one has. Why not accord more votes to the large property owners. Let's give Michael Bloomberg a few ballot boxes to himself.Oh, wait, as a Jew he should not have the vote.Or shall I assume that Mr Judson believes the Founding Fathers' preventing Jews, Catholics, Quakers, women, slaves, and Native Americans from voting counts among the "restrictions you would obviously not think about today".
It really gets me how some people think the Founding was such a blissful, idyllic moment in time. Granted, I know most people realize there were very bloody wars going on but we have become so desensitized to war haven't we? It's called progress; the leaps we've made in civil rights.
So much for the Tea Party being a populist movement.
He's a fucking idiot.To be frank :)
Whites vote. White Men vote. Rich White Men vote. That's the way God... Im sorry - the founding fathers intended it! Obviously.
Post a Comment