Posted on 01/19/2006 10:36:33 AM PST by flashbunny
Tell me how I'm wrong in my interpretation. (...fully expexting the "I'm not wasting my time with you" non-answer.)
So if the porn has no advertising, and is totally free -- and there is plenty -- you are forced to drop your ISC clause objection.
Suddenly, you must become a porn advocate -- unless, of course, your ISC clause objection to it was really an anti-porn ploy. ;^)
damn, you obviously don't understand what the commerce clause is about.
Perhaps you should do some research.
I think all the President would have to do is find all the computer folks who have gone blind quickly.
Niple. Brest. Nakid wimmins. Secx.
Hmmm, some comeback. OK, tell me what IS interstate commerce, then, if not commerce among people in different states. I'll await your answer.
The commerce clause was meant to give the federal government to act as sort of a mediator between the states - in order to keep one state from erecting barriers of trade with another state.
For example, to keep Iowa from enacting an 'import tax' on corn grown in wisconsin.
It was NEVER meant to give the federal power to control EVERYTHING and ANYTHING it wants to merely because it happens interstate.
That is what you are advocating. It is contrary to the vision of the founding fathers. And it is in accordance with what every liberal believes the commerce clause is about.
So do you enjoy siding with them over the people that founded this country?
I conceded all of his erroneous points, and STILL won. :^D
So tell me, Smarty, what is it all about?
Or you could raise him to be mature and responsible. Then you wouldn't have to ride shotgun on him all day long, or rely on the nanny state to do it for you.
Hey, it's just crazy enough to work...
Won what? The irrelevant insult competition? Get a life.
see post 48.
And then do some damn research before you tell everyone what the commerce clause is about.
Oh please, have you ever lived in the real world? Parenting cannot eliminate all biological impulses that 13-year old children might have.
Don't take it personal. You were soundly bested, inasmuch as you had to drop the ISC clause objection to porn once I pointed out to you that there was free porn with no advertisements readily available. In fact, you conspicuously avoided answering that post.
If you get offended by that, no problem. I've met many people over my lifetime who cannot handle being shown they are wrong. ;^)
> Um, I guess I can't allow my son to have friends, because their friends do not have a control on their PCs.
Um, why don't you know your son's friends' parents? And why don't you talk to THEM about it?
> And I guess I have to keep an eye on him all day, to make sure he doesn't head into the public library or an internet cafe either?
If the kid gets his rocks off in a public place, it means he can handle people looking over his shoulder while he looks at porn. Not exactly a comfortable situation.
Honestly, could you try to parent your kid a little more before you start making the government my mommy? Because I already have a mom, and the govt. ain't it.
Actually, I have three children. And I'm not asking you to raise them for me, so quit asking me to raise yours.
Incorrect. Steel-cage parenting with children locked in the basements alleviates all the problems with hormonal children.
Barriers on trade...which is EXACTLY what we would have if some states outlawed produced out-of-state and intended to be imported via the internet. The idea of the commerce clause is to facilitate trade between states by allowing uniform rules among the trading states (i.e. the nation). Use some logic next time.
Voice of experience? ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.