- Joined
- Mar 31, 2018
- Messages
- 60,821
- Reaction score
- 6,492
- Location
- Norcross, Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Good lord, you are being pathetic. It's my thread. I've posted significant content. You have provided... nothing. Nothing at all. Sniping from the bleachers. Nothing of substance. Even the citations you have posted contradict your own assertions. If it weren't for your overweening ego, you should be embarrassed.
Now, I invite you to desist. But, don't worry, I won't notice.
I think you're being pathetic.
Are we in the "rubber-glue" stage of the "debate" now?You can't contribute anything of value and call them pathetic?
Still can't.
It’s not complicated.You claim some expertise in human biology...a complicated subject
Yet why do you know so little about washing machines ?
I think the 16th Amendment took care of the financial privacy question.Great, so that must also include financial privacy as well, meaning the government has no business knowing how much money someone makes or how they made it.
I think the 16th Amendment took care of the financial privacy question.
So what’s the larger point here, assuming that’s true?There were income taxes in the US before the 16th amendment.
So what’s the larger point here, assuming that’s true?
Moderator's Warning: |
There is a difference between information gathered for tax purposes, universally accepted around the world, and the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body.The point is that the filthy state has always violated our privacy, and people like you support such privacy violations, hence you are a hypocrite to argue that a woman has some sort of "right" to privacy from the state regarding abortion.
There is a difference between information gathered for tax purposes, universally accepted around the world,
and the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body.
You sound wistful...Lol, monarchism and slavery were also once "universally accepted around the world".
Again demonstrating a complete lack of intellectual vigor.Do you support the prescription drug system? If yes, then you have no problem with the state interfering with someone's personal decisions about their body.
So you see a golden age where there are no taxes? What’s next, no death?monarchism and slavery were also once "universally accepted around the world".
No, I have some problems in some areas, none in others, as we all do.So you see
Do you support the prescription drug system? If yes, then you have no problem with the state interfering with someone's personal decisions about their body.
No, I have some problems in some areas, none in others, as we all do.
Correct. It’s the nature of the interference that matters. If I chose to use birth control, if when my wife and I chose to abort a fetus that would have been born dead, not the state’s businessTherefore you do support "the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body" for certain things. You are no different, in principle, from a pro-life person who wants "the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body" when it comes to abortion. You and a pro-life person both agree the state should interfere, you just disagree about what.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?