Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
So, no. 😎
Can you name one perfect political system for a society, including the anarcho-communism, that’s perfect in practice?
I'm going to research like a mo fo and on Monday have a full 84 minute lesson on the positive and negatives aspects of anarcho-communism. My 6th graders are going to be pumped!!!
*drool*
Lots of drool on the desks after they fall asleep.
Tell them about Alexander Berkman trying to kill Henry Clay Frick. It’s a great story!
Honestly, how do you idolize that woman?
Which woman?
Emma Goldman. She was part of that plot.
Really? Did you learn that from my article on the topic? Jesus.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
You're not an historian
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
You're not an historian
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
You're not an historian
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
My 7th graders love CNN10. It's one of the rare 10-minute stretches during the day that they're completely quiet and attentive. I show it during advisory in the morning and they react appropriately with good questions when they don't understand something.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
You're not an historian
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
So, no. 😎
Can you name one perfect political system for a society, including the anarcho-communism, that’s perfect in practice?
Do you mean to imply democracy is perfect in theory?
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
So, no. 😎
Can you name one perfect political system for a society, including the anarcho-communism, that’s perfect in practice?
Do you mean to imply democracy is perfect in theory?
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
You're not an historian
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
You're not an historian
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
You're not an historian
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.
I didn't say they don't, I said historical perspective is passing judgments based on the societal norms and concepts of the time, not today's. That's why I brought up that example of criticizing the lack of suffrage for Trans being a ridiculous bar for the founding fathers.
I read People's 25 years ago, probably in 1101, as everyone does. And he's a social professor (like Goldhagen) whereas I focused on political history. And as I said to you much earlier, specifically Age of Jackson.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,417
from an article linked above.....
For example, in Ottumwa, Iowa, fourteen late-shift workers at a meat processing plant, most of them Ethiopian immigrants, showed up to a satellite caucus to support Bernie.
umm arent 15 required for viability according to Iowas rules?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.
You're not an historian
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.
I didn't say they don't, I said historical perspective is passing judgments based on the societal norms and concepts of the time, not today's. That's why I brought up that example of criticizing the lack of suffrage for Trans being a ridiculous bar for the founding fathers.
I read People's 25 years ago, probably in 1101, as everyone does. And he's a social professor (like Goldhagen) whereas I focused on political history. And as I said to you much earlier, specifically Age of Jackson.
For example, in Ottumwa, Iowa, fourteen late-shift workers at a meat processing plant, most of them Ethiopian immigrants, showed up to a satellite caucus to support Bernie.
umm arent 15 required for viability according to Iowas rules?
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?
Can you?
Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.
Am I wrong?
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach
No im applying historical perspective.
Poorly.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.
Comments
I fear you're a one trick pony.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I read People's 25 years ago, probably in 1101, as everyone does. And he's a social professor (like Goldhagen) whereas I focused on political history. And as I said to you much earlier, specifically Age of Jackson.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14