Alan
…unlucky Del - No chance 😉
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2012
- Messages
- 42,239
- Reaction score
- 10,878
Big fan of the Dred Scott case, I bet?Until it’s ruled against you
Big fan of the Dred Scott case, I bet?Until it’s ruled against you
You can’t compare disenfranchised people. Of course a ruling on people who were put in a place against their will and have no say in the law will never be justBig fan of the Dred Scott case, I bet?
Though I suppose this does raise the question of pregnant minorsYou can’t compare disenfranchised people. Of course a ruling on people who were put in a place against their will and have no say in the law will never be just
It isn't. Greed, power and control through fear and propaganda is sacred.but life is sacred.
And you don't think women are being disenfranchised by this ruling?You can’t compare disenfranchised people. Of course a ruling on people who were put in a place against their will and have no say in the law will never be just
Don't be a patronising @#£-Don’t think you know what that word means…
Maybe you should use a dictionary next time before you spout your right wing MAGA garbage.In the US disenfranchisement generally is used to mean without the right to vote, and in the context of my comment that’s clearly what it was used as.
Whether a right was taken away or not is a philosophical debate and has nothing to do with my comment about Dred Scott.
Who the fuck are you to tell me what that word means in the US?In the US disenfranchisement generally is used to mean without the right to vote, and in the context of my comment that’s clearly what it was used as.
Whether a right was taken away or not is a philosophical debate and has nothing to do with my comment about Dred Scott.