Joined
·
2,546 Posts
I raised the conflict between 18 being allegedly too young to buy firearms, yet wise enough to vote in a letter to the editor. It will never see print due to other editorial absurdities from the leftist side of the staff that I rebutted. The previous day's editorial was a beacon of reason on the issue of violence. I guess the next day was for the leftists to vent. Gotta keep peace in the newsroom.
The older I get, the more wisdom I see in the Roman concept that the age of reason was 25. Also in the old and vanished English concept that one had to own property of a certain value to be able to vote (I think there were some other ways to get the franchise, that's the one I remember). Unfortunately, neither is gonna fly. I'll back your idea Gyro, for what that's worth.
Churchill defended his defection to the Tory Party with the quip: "He who is not liberal in their youth has no heart. He who does not become conservative as they age has no head". It's a great burden that leftists, some of whom may be very intelligent, never seem to see that their promised land is one of ruin. Even with failed societies past and present, their argument is that "they" can do it correctly. After all, history is just fiction about dead white men. [Wonder how they deal with the various Asian/Latin/Middle Eastern failures? Besides ignoring them.]
The older I get, the more wisdom I see in the Roman concept that the age of reason was 25. Also in the old and vanished English concept that one had to own property of a certain value to be able to vote (I think there were some other ways to get the franchise, that's the one I remember). Unfortunately, neither is gonna fly. I'll back your idea Gyro, for what that's worth.
Churchill defended his defection to the Tory Party with the quip: "He who is not liberal in their youth has no heart. He who does not become conservative as they age has no head". It's a great burden that leftists, some of whom may be very intelligent, never seem to see that their promised land is one of ruin. Even with failed societies past and present, their argument is that "they" can do it correctly. After all, history is just fiction about dead white men. [Wonder how they deal with the various Asian/Latin/Middle Eastern failures? Besides ignoring them.]