790
edits
Changes
→Protection
* Finally, since the article is locked, it seems like you are abusing your sysop privileges, by push controvesial edits. The previous formulation was a compromise, after weeks of disccussion. It changed from ''support for human rights'' to ''support'', back to ''opposition'', back to ''support'', until we agreed that Liberal just don't get it, that Bush is doing it for human rights. You are showing a lot of disrespect to a long discussion, to which contributed a lot yourself. [[User:Order]] 9 April , 18:20 (AEST)
* Finally, since the article is locked, it seems like you are abusing your sysop privileges, by push controvesial edits. The previous formulation was a compromise, after weeks of disccussion. It changed from ''support for human rights'' to ''support'', back to ''opposition'', back to ''support'', until we agreed that Liberal just don't get it, that Bush is doing it for human rights. You are showing a lot of disrespect to a long discussion, to which contributed a lot yourself. [[User:Order]] 9 April , 18:20 (AEST)
: Remember, articles 23-29 give socioeconomic rights (right to job, right to minimum standard of living, etc) - social security is definitely something 'liberals' push for (sorry, but I hate the broad grouping).
'Liberals '''actively''' opposed human rights and democracy for the peoples of Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s'
What? But the conservatives funded the contras, who proceeded to go around massacring their enemies. I don't see ''that'' as very supportive of human rights and democracy. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]