Originally posted by Pekka
I chose the latter one because you have shown overwhelming racism against me in the past so I was in the right to choose the latter one. But since the case seems now that you meant the first one, well, I won't apologize but I understand what you meant.
I chose the latter one because you have shown overwhelming racism against me in the past so I was in the right to choose the latter one. But since the case seems now that you meant the first one, well, I won't apologize but I understand what you meant.
Edit: As a rule, no matter what I think of other peoples' opinions, I always encourage them to look for the politicians who defend the same opinions. Unless one helds VERY marginal beliefs (and I don't think you are), there will always be a politician that'll defend the point of view, and there's always a way for one's voice to be heard
In this case, we are in agreement against the constitution, for different reasons. We also agree on the fact that the decision should be made by the citizens and not the policians. But even if I had wholly disagreed with you (which I do fairly often ), I think your opinions would deserve to be represented, and I think you should support the politicians who defend them.
Comment