27 minutes ago, cbae wrote
You're using the same type of arguments that segregationists used.
How many times have I cited specific things, highlighting your hypocrisy, bigotry and inability to understand basic concepts (as I will below)... and yet you continue to make such false accusations? Again... liberals...
You're not very good at reading comprehension, are you?
You may need to connect the dots for me... because when reading something like the Row vs Wade decision... I can at least see how they got from A to Q... even though a good chunk of it was made up along the way and self-serving. Instead, you might as well accuse me of conspiring with extra-terrestrials to conquer Canada... as there's probably more evidence of the latter... I mean, I don't live too far from Canada, it'd be an easy place to strike from.
Should I start making up wild and fanciful accusations which I don't offer supporting evidence for as well?
Riiight. I'm advocating "the removal or diminishing the rights of ANY individual"
I think you forgot to follow that up with: "we've always been at war with Eastasia."
Seriously, you need to get help as you are starting to sound sufficiently unhinged that you may be a threat to yourself or others.
12 minutes ago, cbae wrote
As far as I know, that's when all "full humans", including bigots, got their freedom of speech, which is a different from "protection from discrimination".
So wait... "full humans" only got their "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment was ratified?
This is one of those fine examples where we see how you like to pick & choose which parts of the Constitution you care about... because if you knew much about it's creation, you'd know that, even going back to the Declaration of Independence (a couple decades earlier ) the founders wrote of "unalienable rights"... you should read up on them.
Again, this is the difference between a liberal and a conservative & constutionalist...
Liberals believe that rights are government granted, while conservatives & constutionalist believe in unalienable rights that pre-existed this (or any) government, which governments are (in part) created to protect and cannot easily be taken away.
Why must I remind you that YOU are the one advocating for reduction of rights of some, not the rest of us here.
Edit: To add an example of your desire to remove rights from some groups (from this thread):
17 hours ago, cbae wrote
The right to vote should be based on mental maturity, but it's not. It's based on an arbitrary age--i.e. a technicality.
Spin all you like, but you advocated from the removal of the right to vote from those over the age of majority but who you do not deem to have sufficient mental maturity.
Notice how I keep citing things? You could learn a thing or two...