In response to:

Why Do the Backwoods Bigots Get to Vote?

Libertarian Teacher Wrote: May 16, 2012 1:45 PM
It never ceases to amaze me at how exclusive the cause of progressivism is. Jackson fought off the Supreme Court for the Trail of Tears, it took Lincoln's initiative to end slavery, it took Senate Republicans to end the filibuster over the Civil Rights Act, and now our dear sweet "Sophie" and liberal elites want to take suffrage back to "original intent." Unless you are a member of the landed nobility of University Campuses (and some non-State Sponsored Colleges), you cannot vote. Sounds about par for the course.
Brian1078 Wrote: May 16, 2012 8:40 PM
Well that would be one way to keep the welfare queens from voting early and often in the liberal bastions of welfaredom.
oneeye Wrote: May 16, 2012 2:15 PM
Excellent points.
Progressivism is never about more rights for more people. It's always about more power for the elites to do to the rest of us what we need to have done to us. Any arguements about "rights", gay, civil, or otherwise, are simply sophistry to achieve their ends.
"Original intent" on voting was male property owners. They might stretch it a bit to females with graduate degrees from an approved list of institutions.
Kruelhunter Wrote: May 18, 2012 11:55 PM
Divide and conquer. Read the history of Utipian Socialism for some real insight into what we face.

In my last article, I explained how embarrassed the liberal elites were in the aftermath of North Carolina’s decisive passage of the marriage amendment. In their view, it was a triumph for backwoods bigotry. But there was a deeper sentiment lurking beneath the headlines and the sound bites: It’s hardly fair that these bigots get to vote! Just think of how wonderful America would be if only the enlightened ones could make the decisions.

A headline last week on the militant, gay activist site Truth Wins Out read, “North Carolina chooses bigotry over prosperity.” The article went on...