It needs to be and ethnic security needs to be paramount. Of course, Redux calls it Indian "Hegemony".
It needs to be and ethnic security needs to be paramount. Of course, Redux calls it Indian "Hegemony".
I call it Indian hegemony and it is Indian hegemony that is being conserved in the PPP resistance to constitutional change. They called it illegal in '78 so what made it legal now? After all the referendum to make it law was rigged.
Any constitution must be race neutral. However, given our particular demographics it must be so crafted not to afford any ethic group overloading the electoral process ( the one to be crafted). It must be so engineered that if constituencies are created no party can field numerous candidates to water down the vote of the people.
We need to look at other electoral process as multi vote via first and second and even third preference etc. Add to that two legislative houses, with overlapping constituencies and we have a barrier to ethnic infighting since it would mean little in the end. We can even try non territorial federalism. Whatever we do it should not be so that one side or the other can use the process to capture the state as a prize and pillage it.
It needs to be and ethnic security needs to be paramount. Of course, Redux calls it Indian "Hegemony".
I call it Indian hegemony and it is Indian hegemony that is being conserved in the PPP resistance to constitutional change. They called it illegal in '78 so what made it legal now? After all the referendum to make it law was rigged.
Any constitution must be race neutral. However, given our particular demographics it must be so crafted not to afford any ethic group overloading the electoral process ( the one to be crafted). It must be so engineered that if constituencies are created no party can field numerous candidates to water down the vote of the people.
We need to look at other electoral process as multi vote via first and second and even third preference etc. Add to that two legislative houses, with overlapping constituencies and we have a barrier to ethnic infighting since it would mean little in the end. We can even try non territorial federalism. Whatever we do it should not be so that one side or the other can use the process to capture the state as a prize and pillage it.
You jumping in front yuh butt buddy Redux to claim the term, eh.
It needs to be and ethnic security needs to be paramount. Of course, Redux calls it Indian "Hegemony".
I call it Indian hegemony and it is Indian hegemony that is being conserved in the PPP resistance to constitutional change. They called it illegal in '78 so what made it legal now? After all the referendum to make it law was rigged.
Any constitution must be race neutral. However, given our particular demographics it must be so crafted not to afford any ethic group overloading the electoral process ( the one to be crafted). It must be so engineered that if constituencies are created no party can field numerous candidates to water down the vote of the people.
We need to look at other electoral process as multi vote via first and second and even third preference etc. Add to that two legislative houses, with overlapping constituencies and we have a barrier to ethnic infighting since it would mean little in the end. We can even try non territorial federalism. Whatever we do it should not be so that one side or the other can use the process to capture the state as a prize and pillage it.
You jumping in front yuh butt buddy Redux to claim the term, eh.
Why is it that imbeciles like you presume that they can get an edge if they call someone else a woman or a ******? It does not make you smarter. I am not gay or remotely so and have no "buddy" here on this site. I am here to offer my views and admitting to a fact that I used the term now for many years is not jumping ahead of anyone. It is a word used to encapsulate a condition that matches a reality.
It needs to be and ethnic security needs to be paramount. Of course, Redux calls it Indian "Hegemony".
I call it Indian hegemony and it is Indian hegemony that is being conserved in the PPP resistance to constitutional change. They called it illegal in '78 so what made it legal now? After all the referendum to make it law was rigged.
Any constitution must be race neutral. However, given our particular demographics it must be so crafted not to afford any ethic group overloading the electoral process ( the one to be crafted). It must be so engineered that if constituencies are created no party can field numerous candidates to water down the vote of the people.
We need to look at other electoral process as multi vote via first and second and even third preference etc. Add to that two legislative houses, with overlapping constituencies and we have a barrier to ethnic infighting since it would mean little in the end. We can even try non territorial federalism. Whatever we do it should not be so that one side or the other can use the process to capture the state as a prize and pillage it.
You jumping in front yuh butt buddy Redux to claim the term, eh.
Why is it that imbeciles like you presume that they can get an edge if they call someone else a woman or a ******? It does not make you smarter. I am not gay or remotely so and have no "buddy" here on this site. I am here to offer my views and admitting to a fact that I used the term now for many years is not jumping ahead of anyone. It is a word used to encapsulate a condition that matches a reality.
Jackass...you talk too much. Your jaw will wear out.
It needs to be and ethnic security needs to be paramount. Of course, Redux calls it Indian "Hegemony".
I call it Indian hegemony and it is Indian hegemony that is being conserved in the PPP resistance to constitutional change. They called it illegal in '78 so what made it legal now? After all the referendum to make it law was rigged.
Any constitution must be race neutral. However, given our particular demographics it must be so crafted not to afford any ethic group overloading the electoral process ( the one to be crafted). It must be so engineered that if constituencies are created no party can field numerous candidates to water down the vote of the people.
We need to look at other electoral process as multi vote via first and second and even third preference etc. Add to that two legislative houses, with overlapping constituencies and we have a barrier to ethnic infighting since it would mean little in the end. We can even try non territorial federalism. Whatever we do it should not be so that one side or the other can use the process to capture the state as a prize and pillage it.
You jumping in front yuh butt buddy Redux to claim the term, eh.
Why is it that imbeciles like you presume that they can get an edge if they call someone else a woman or a ******? It does not make you smarter. I am not gay or remotely so and have no "buddy" here on this site. I am here to offer my views and admitting to a fact that I used the term now for many years is not jumping ahead of anyone. It is a word used to encapsulate a condition that matches a reality.
Jackass...you talk too much. Your jaw will wear out.
you pretend there is much more to that little you have in that peabrain...not possible.
It needs to be and ethnic security needs to be paramount. Of course, Redux calls it Indian "Hegemony".
exactly WHAT did i call "Indian Hegemony" [scratchin mah head] ??
yuh language a tad imprecise deh
Access to this requires a premium membership.