[1rudeboy]

Just a simple example to blow away your flawed logic that since Amendments were allowed by the Founders, that future Amendments would therefore be beneficial.

Except for the fact that the above was never my argument, and that it is a tortuous fabrication on your part, it is an example of something. I submit, idiocy.

[pissant]

Once more:

Me: no like 19A

You: You support Sharia too?

Me: Did the early Founders?

You: They allowed amendments

You used the “they allowed amendments” argument to do what? To refute the notion that I ID’d a time when women didn’t vote, generally, yet there was no sharia? It failed as an argument, completely. There was no sharia. Women didn’t have to walk behind the men, as you flippantly suggested I’d support, since I support repealing the 19A.

But I gave you the BOTD that you really believed “they allowed amendments” was somehow a refutation of my point, and therefore offered that amendments are not all beneficial. And you tortured logic to somehow push the notion that because the 18A was bad, that I used that to argue that it being bad made the 19A bad.

THE ONLY relationship is that they are both examples, IMO, of bad amendments