Why Higher Standards for the U.S. 1676I don't know where Jeffy has been for the past 15 years. CNN alone constantly had "pundits" on shows talking about the plans to do things by the Muslim fanatics. Bin Laden gave ABC News...
You're a hoot. Well, you started with "Marriage is NOT a civil right", which has been disproven at least six different times. You want a seventh? Nope. Loving *HAD NOT* qualified for it, hence the court case. You think that people take things to the SCOTUS when they are already being allowed (qualified) for the situation? And you call *that* a legal marriage? So you don't understand the term "marriage" the same way you don't understand the term "civil right". Exactly how many strokes had mommy had before she started homeschooling you? You really are defenseless in this whole thread, aren't you? I've never met anyone with reading retention as low as you. Are you being studied? So now you have to "qualify" to have "basic civil rights". Just like all them "darkies" didn't qualify for their civil rights because they was all the wrong color and such. The idea that civil rights don't apply to the everyone is faulty, in that it is opposite to the very basis of civil rights. There's an echo in you. Failed the spelling test when the word "analogy" came up, eh? Uh, most of these words don't mean what you think at all. You realize that, right? You're getting some help, right? It's like having a peeing contest with a dehydrated chimp. -- "I mean, I don't want to be a control freak, but I think reality has a responsibility to us to be at least mildly comprehensible."
|
