[Sherman Logan]

“This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good.”

What a non-issue!

This is exactly the proper purpose of government, to protect all by limiting the freedom of all in certain ways. For instance, my freedom to rape, steal, enslave and murder is limited by the government, as well it should be.

The entire argument is over which freedoms should be restricted. This is the "fight that we have been having for a couple hundred years.”

I quite agree that this female in all likelihood wants to restrict our rights, something very different from our freedoms. But what she actually said is a mere truism.

[Third Person]

She doesn’t know what she’s saying... only what she feels.

[Ouderkirk]

This dunce has a degree printed on toilet paper from the intellectual slum of the university. Yet, she thinks she is well educated.

[Political Junkie Too]

...have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good.”

You miss the issue.

The issue is where does this "right" that she speaks of come from? Where in the Constitution does it say that our elected Representatives have the power to vote our bill of rights away?

That's what she's calling for. Arguing that government already limits individual rights is accepting the frame of the debate, which is a liberal frame.

-PJ