XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.stupidity, alt.tv.hbo   
   From: nobody@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/7/2024 2:48 AM, trotsky wrote:   
   > On 10/5/24 11:02 AM, moviePig wrote:   
   >> On 10/4/2024 6:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>> In article , moviePig    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 10/4/2024 5:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>> In article , moviePig   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 10/4/2024 3:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>>> In article , moviePig   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/4/2024 2:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> In article , moviePig   
   >>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should be pissed about the Court because it's   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell out personal freedom.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As in?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my by Democrats.)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm more   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> girlfriend's, my daughter's...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grant   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> federal government power over health care, so it's   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment--   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but she supports it for her own reasons.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important than someone else's.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "freedom to choose" is more important than   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "freedom to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meddle".   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> next time Democrats allow their base to rampage through the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> city.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> have   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> access to?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> government's freedom to meddle, remember?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass   
   >>>>>>>>>>> destruction.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on   
   >>>>>>>>> is the   
   >>>>>>>>> Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that   
   >>>>>>>>> freedom to   
   >>>>>>>>> choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively   
   >>>>>>>> screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a   
   >>>>>>> 'screech'?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare   
   >>>>>>> it to   
   >>>>>>> your own posts and see how they stack up.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> First, let me check to see if we're now answering questions:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Beg pardon?  Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious   
   >>>> question)?   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy should a   
   >>> woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is apparently   
   >>> a serious answer to a serious question.   
   >>>   
   >>> Now my turn:   
   >>>   
   >>> What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a   
   >>> 'screech'?   
   >>>   
   >>> I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to   
   >>> your own posts and see how they stack up.   
   >>   
   >> I think you know I'll answer your question (in more detail than you'll   
   >> want and you won't have to remind me).  But I'm still unclear on your   
   >> response to mine:   
   >>   
   >> You seem to hear exaggeration in my allowing a woman to control   
   >> *every* aspect of her pregnancy.   
   >   
   > If you think a woman can decide to abort in the third trimester without   
   > a doctor's edict you're not making sense.   
      
   Until delivery, only *her* beliefs matter. Yours or mine are irrelevant.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)