Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homosexual Agenda"
From Conservapedia
(WOV's got a point) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == WOV's got a point == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion. | ||
Revision as of 06:06, March 12, 2007
Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --WOVcenter 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
WOV's got a point
Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. I recommend the entire thing for deletion.
Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.
I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.
