Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade

[Monk-Eye]

" Wishful Thinking Bloviate "

* Simple Tons *

Big multi-syllabic words are often a smoke screen to conceal the little thoughts behind them.

The argument is direct , there is nothing complicated about it .

A state is comprised of citizens and citizens receive constitutionally protected wrights at birth .

* Self Infatuated Arrogance *

Science has given us a viewpoint never achieved before and we can't pretend anymore the person inside the womb is nothing but a collection of cells.

Science may be able to relatively established the onset of sentience where by a basis for valid empathy a state can legislate when the killing of a fetus without constitutional protections may be considered a vice .

* Going Nowhere Fast *

Hopefully the addition of Amy Barrett to the court will reinvigorate the pro life movement.

This argument has been held in the face of us supreme court justices , whether directly or indirectly , and assuredly acb has already been directed to this site and will be forced , whether directly or indirectly , to deal with its merits .

The left has its public narrative and is content with it , they do not have the capacity or motivation to articulate this argument , while the right does not want to be abandoned by votes from the religious reich and pander to them hoping to keep their seats .

 

[Grumblenuts]

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade "

* On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism *

The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom wrote the majority opinion on roe v wade , ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .


* Deeper Analysis *

The democrat and republican parties are promoting political platforms offering abortion as a statistical indicator for votes .

The republican party is promoting an ascetic platform opposing abortion which purports to maintain pontius scholars and self validated officiates of constitutionalism .

A pretense that affiliates of the republican party have surmised roe v wade decision is inconsistent with us constitution completely ignores those who have surmised that roe v wade decision is consistent with us constitution and not simply by stare decisis .

As such , to legitimize the choice , any candidate for us supreme court must be challenged with the ' logically of course ' statement of blackum from roe v wade decision in addition to being expected to provid a sufficient explanation for its meaning relative with us constitution .

Constitutionalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ... Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.[3]

Republican Majority for Choice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Republicans for Choice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* Political Party Pandering Public Opinion For A Constitutional Non Issue *

U.S. Abortion Attitudes Stable; No Consensus on Legality

Americans' views on the legality and morality of abortion haven't changed in the past year. Most say abortion should be legal, but many of these favor limits.

news.gallup.com

Demand? Why don't you just step outside and scream at the sky numbskull.

So you don't think anything should be demanded of those applying for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land? You appear to be the one screaming like an idiot here.

 

[Dick Foster]

" Wishful Thinking Bloviate "

* Simple Tons *

Big multi-syllabic words are often a smoke screen to conceal the little thoughts behind them.

The argument is direct , there is nothing complicated about it .

A state is comprised of citizens and citizens receive constitutionally protected wrights at birth .

* Self Infatuated Arrogance *

Science has given us a viewpoint never achieved before and we can't pretend anymore the person inside the womb is nothing but a collection of cells.

Science may be able to relatively established the onset of sentience where by a basis for valid empathy a state can legislate when the killing of a fetus without constitutional protections may be considered a vice .

* Going Nowhere Fast *

Hopefully the addition of Amy Barrett to the court will reinvigorate the pro life movement.

This argument has been held in the face of us supreme court justices , whether directly or indirectly , and assuredly acb has already been directed to this site and will be forced , whether directly or indirectly , to deal with its merits .

The left has its public narrative and is content with it , they do not have the capacity or motivation to articulate this argument , while the right does not want to be abandoned by votes from the religious reich and pander to them hoping to keep their seats .

You can't even spell it you simple minded numbskull.

 

[Mac-7]

Analogously then, fetuses are women haters best friends.

No one on the right hates women

 

[Dick Foster]

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade "

* On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism *

The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom wrote the majority opinion on roe v wade , ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .


* Deeper Analysis *

The democrat and republican parties are promoting political platforms offering abortion as a statistical indicator for votes .

The republican party is promoting an ascetic platform opposing abortion which purports to maintain pontius scholars and self validated officiates of constitutionalism .

A pretense that affiliates of the republican party have surmised roe v wade decision is inconsistent with us constitution completely ignores those who have surmised that roe v wade decision is consistent with us constitution and not simply by stare decisis .

As such , to legitimize the choice , any candidate for us supreme court must be challenged with the ' logically of course ' statement of blackum from roe v wade decision in addition to being expected to provid a sufficient explanation for its meaning relative with us constitution .

Constitutionalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ... Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.[3]

Republican Majority for Choice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Republicans for Choice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* Political Party Pandering Public Opinion For A Constitutional Non Issue *

U.S. Abortion Attitudes Stable; No Consensus on Legality

Americans' views on the legality and morality of abortion haven't changed in the past year. Most say abortion should be legal, but many of these favor limits.

news.gallup.com

Demand? Why don't you just step outside and scream at the sky numbskull.

So you don't think anything should be demanded of those applying for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land? You appear to be the one screaming like an idiot here.

You're lost in the delusion of your own self-importance I see. Typical of a small minded mental midget such as yourself.

 

[Grumblenuts]

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade "

* On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism *

The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom wrote the majority opinion on roe v wade , ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .


* Deeper Analysis *

The democrat and republican parties are promoting political platforms offering abortion as a statistical indicator for votes .

The republican party is promoting an ascetic platform opposing abortion which purports to maintain pontius scholars and self validated officiates of constitutionalism .

A pretense that affiliates of the republican party have surmised roe v wade decision is inconsistent with us constitution completely ignores those who have surmised that roe v wade decision is consistent with us constitution and not simply by stare decisis .

As such , to legitimize the choice , any candidate for us supreme court must be challenged with the ' logically of course ' statement of blackum from roe v wade decision in addition to being expected to provid a sufficient explanation for its meaning relative with us constitution .

Constitutionalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ... Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.[3]

Republican Majority for Choice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Republicans for Choice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* Political Party Pandering Public Opinion For A Constitutional Non Issue *

U.S. Abortion Attitudes Stable; No Consensus on Legality

Americans' views on the legality and morality of abortion haven't changed in the past year. Most say abortion should be legal, but many of these favor limits.

news.gallup.com

Demand? Why don't you just step outside and scream at the sky numbskull.

So you don't think anything should be demanded of those applying for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land? You appear to be the one screaming like an idiot here.

You're lost in the delusion of your own self-importance I see. Typical of a small minded mental midget such as yourself.

Feel better now?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So you don't think anything should be demanded of those applying for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land? You appear to be the one screaming like an idiot here.

But do you think more should be demanded of Coney Barrett than any others justice?
She's gone through the confirmation process just like all the judges you like, presumably.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The argument is direct , there is nothing complicated about it .

A state is comprised of citizens and citizens receive constitutionally protected wrights at birth .

Yes. The argument is extremely simple like a ten cent hot dog covered with an overbearing heap of
verbiage concealing such a small amount of substance.

A state is comprised of citizens and citizens receive constitutionally protected wrights at birth .

This is like the antebellum South where citizens were granted all the rights they had coming to them.
Unfortunately the old Confederacy didn't consider slaves human beings deserving of rights so your argument could easily go back in a time machine to the pre war South and fit in very well.
Is a right to life too much to ask of the sociopathic left? Apparently it is.

Science may be able to relatively established the onset of sentience where by a basis for valid empathy a state can legislate when the killing of a fetus without constitutional protections may be considered a vice .

Horrific syntax.

* Going Nowhere Fast *

Hopefully the addition of Amy Barrett to the court will reinvigorate the pro life movement.

This argument has been held in the face of us supreme court justices , whether directly or indirectly , and assuredly acb has already been directed to this site and will be forced , whether directly or indirectly , to deal with its merits .

The left has its public narrative and is content with it , they do not have the capacity or motivation to articulate this argument , while the right does not want to be abandoned by votes from the religious reich and pander to them hoping to keep their seats .
[/QUOTE]It's a fallacy to think only the very religious want protection for the unborn.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Recovering Lost Tracks Up To Speed "

* Absent A Formal Pedagogy In Natural Freedoms And Individualism *

Yes. The argument is extremely simple like a ten cent hot dog covered with an overbearing heap of verbiage concealing such a small amount of substance.This is like the antebellum South where citizens were granted all the rights they had coming to them.
Unfortunately the old Confederacy didn't consider slaves human beings deserving of rights so your argument could easily go back in a time machine to the pre war South and fit in very well.
Is a right to life too much to ask of the sociopathic left? Apparently it is.

The question about abortion is not this , " When does life begin ? " , rather the question about abortion is this , " When does a state interest begin ? " .

A state is comprised of citizens and acts on behalf of citizens , in who state interests lay , where by us 14th amendment one becomes a citizen at birth , whereby equal protection requires birth .

A fetus not having been born is without constitutional protections and is private property of the mother , and any perceived offenses against the fetus are in fact offenses against the mother , whereby penalties may be applied as prescribed by law .

An enforcement of capital punishment as a penalty stipulates a double entendre , where a perpetrator removes their own wright to life by removing a wright to life of another individual , as a fetus is without constitutional protections , capital punishment cannot be applied .

* Filling Inn Gaps *

Horrific syntax.

Sentience is a prerequisite for conscientious objection , and conscientious objection is a prerequisite for being represented through legal counsel by proxy .

A valid basis for conscientious objection given sentience is empathy for suffering .

The science of histology studies cells and thalamocortical radiations are necessary for a physical capacity for an onset of sentience to occur .

Thalamocortical radiations bridge between the cerebral cortex and autonomic nervous system interface of the thalamus .

Studies for the onset of thalamocortical radiations indicate they do not form any earlier than the 23rd week of gestation , with sentience most probably beginning somewhere between the 26th and 29th week of gestation .

The onset of sentience is nearly concomitant with a potential onset of natural viability .

The roe v wade decision applied the us 10th amendment and allowed state interest to proscribe abortion in the third trimester given the potential onset of natural viability .

Thalamocortical radiations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* Multiple Other Valid Reasons To Get Beyond It Including Volition From Benevolent Creeds *

Hopefully the addition of Amy Barrett to the court will reinvigorate the pro life movement.

It's a fallacy to think only the very religious want protection for the unborn.

The constitutional basis of roe v wade , and the philosophical basis of ethics for roe v wade decision , are both valid justifications upon which to establish public policy related to abortion .

According to theories , the principle of individualism asserts than an individual is accountable and responsible for self ownership through progeny and not through authoritarianism of a collective state .

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The question about abortion is not this , " When does life begin ? " , rather the question about abortion is this , " When does a state interest begin ? " .

If the State has an interest in taking life away then the abolishment of the death penalty is hypocritical
and a cruel sanctimonious lie.
It just demonstrates how the State is a lying double dealer that will spare the lives of criminals but
enforce the death sentences handed down on the unborn.

Such a government is too corrupt and hypocritical to deserve any respect and obeisance whatsoever.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Presenting A Different Tune "

* No Hypocrisy Here *

If the State has an interest in taking life away then the abolishment of the death penalty is hypocritical and a cruel sanctimonious lie.
It just demonstrates how the State is a lying double dealer that will spare the lives of criminals but enforce the death sentences handed down on the unborn.
Such a government is too corrupt and hypocritical to deserve any respect and obeisance whatsoever.

From a pro-choice supporter of capital punishment , what is your point ?

Prior to entering into a social civil agreement to become a citizen according to protected wrights included in a constitution , one is subject to natural freedoms to do whichever one is able to do according to fates of nature .

By removing a wright to life of another , by due process , the perpetrator loses their own wright to life and is reverted to natural freedoms before a state that may issue capital punishment .

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

From a pro-choice supporter of capital punishment , what is your point ?

I am simply being consistent about the State's right to terminate life. How about you?

If a convicted felon is spared the death penalty because the State says their lives are precious and worth
protecting then how are the lives of the unborn any less valuable then that of a heinous criminal?


We've all already seen how the government treats those they deem less than truly human during
the era of slavery. Why are people still so bloodthirsty and eager to kill those they choose to see as
less than truly human? Ask yourself why you are eager to murder?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" More Purposeful Conflagration By The Disingenuous "

* Different Actors *

I am simply being consistent about the State's right to terminate life. How about you?

The state does not terminate a pregnancy in elective abortion .

* No Clue *

If a convicted felon is spared the death penalty because the State says their lives are precious and worth protecting then how are the lives of the unborn any less valuable then that of a heinous criminal?

You have not been paying attention .

* Legal Positivism *

We've all already seen how the government treats those they deem less than truly human during the era of slavery. Why are people still so bloodthirsty and eager to kill those they choose to see as
less than truly human? Ask yourself why you are eager to murder?

By definition , murder is unlawful killing , and by law abortion is not murder and neither is capital punishment .

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The state does not terminate a pregnancy in elective abortion .

The State makes it legally possible. Don't be so coy. The State didn't hunt down escaped slaves and hang
them from trees either. They just made it possible and legal for slavers to do so.
Your denials are weak.

You have not been paying attention .

To what?

By definition , murder is unlawful killing , and by law abortion is not murder and neither is capital punishment .

Yes. That's the whole point, isn't it. The hypocrisy of the law.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Carnivores With Halos "

* Trifling Abdication To State Dictates *

The State makes it legally possible. Don't be so coy.

The state is comprised of and obligated to citizens which must be born and us constitution provides equal protection to those which have been born .

* False Association *

The State didn't hunt down escaped slaves and hang them from trees either. They just made it possible and legal for slavers to do so. Your denials are weak. To what? Yes. That's the whole point, isn't it. The hypocrisy of the law.

Slavery and abortion are not related issues and elective abortion is ethical , so there is not any hypocrisy by the state .

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The state is comprised of and obligated to citizens which must be born and us constitution provides equal protection to those which have been born .

What about those of us with fully functioning brains and bodies whose only "crime" is not yet leaving
the mother's womb? Tough shit, I guess.
Just like those in other places and times who had the misfortune of being a slave or a Jew or a Chinese dissident of some sort in China's gulag of reeducation work farms and organ harvesting facilities.

That's just how things go, I suppose. Nothing anyone can do about those things.

Slavery and abortion are not related issues and elective abortion is ethical , so there is not any hypocrisy by the state .

Slavery and abortion are of course linked tightly together as once perfectly legal and commonplace
atrocities (approved of by people like you) that mankind has come to see as moral abominations embraced
by barbarous societies with no regard for human dignity or life.
That abortionist Kermit Gosnell was sentenced to three life sentences for heinously murdering innocent children seems to escape your attention or you just don't care in any case.

Whether elective abortions are ethical or not is a highly contentious issue.
The practice is better than the Gosnell method (plunging scissors through the skulls of babies born alive
and storing the bodies in jars in his basement) but there are still many grey areas to deal with
(not that morally ambiguous issues bother you).

In any case the State is still highly hypocritical when it comes to the deaths it sanctions
and the lives it spares and destroys every day of the year. Serial killers are spared. Little helpless
infants are killed without remorse because there is political value for politicians in it.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Sentience Is A Prerequisite For Sapience "

* False Claims About Physical Development Sufficient To Qualify For A Homo Sapiens Sapiens Category *

What about those of us with fully functioning brains and bodies whose only "crime" is not yet leaving the mother's womb? Tough shit, I guess.

You are apparently making reference to a homunuculus , which is an antiquated , false projection of a fully formed human and not one that matures , thus personifying a fetus as having a fully functioning brain until the onset of sentience is not valid .

Homunculus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A homunculus (UK: /hɒˈmʌŋkjʊləs/ hom-UNK-yuul-əs, US: /hoʊˈ-/ hohm-, Latin: [hɔˈmʊŋkʊlʊs]; "little person") is a representation of a small human being. Popularized in sixteenth-century alchemy and nineteenth-century fiction, it has historically referred to the creation of a miniature, fully formed human. The concept has roots in preformationism as well as earlier folklore and alchemic traditions.

* Left Wing Press Fake News Tactic Of Sensationalized Melodrama *

Just like those in other places and times who had the misfortune of being a slave or a Jew or a Chinese dissident of some sort in China's gulag of reeducation work farms and organ harvesting facilities.
That's just how things go, I suppose. Nothing anyone can do about those things.
Slavery and abortion are of course linked tightly together as once perfectly legal and commonplace atrocities (approved of by people like you) that mankind has come to see as moral abominations embraced by barbarous societies with no regard for human dignity or life.
That abortionist Kermit Gosnell was sentenced to three life sentences for heinously murdering innocent children seems to escape your attention or you just don't care in any case.
Whether elective abortions are ethical or not is a highly contentious issue.
The practice is better than the Gosnell method (plunging scissors through the skulls of babies born alive
and storing the bodies in jars in his basement) but there are still many grey areas to deal with
(not that morally ambiguous issues bother you).
In any case the State is still highly hypocritical when it comes to the deaths it sanctions
and the lives it spares and destroys every day of the year. Serial killers are spared. Little helpless
infants are killed without remorse because there is political value for politicians in it.

There goes the neighborhood again , pandering third trimester abortions as a justification to outlaw all abortions .

The late second trimester and third trimester abortions are nearly all for pregnancy complications , in particular for fetal abnormalities .

Between 0% and 200% of the poverty line has approximately 75% of all abortions , and more than half of those having abortions already have children .

In 1986 the welfare reform act sought to ensure that the welfare queen stereotype did not get compensated for having more children .

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You are apparently making reference to a homunuculus , which is an antiquated , false projection of a fully formed human and not one that matures , thus personifying a fetus as having a fully functioning brain until the onset of sentience is not valid .

No. I am not thinking of a homonculus. Perhaps you are thinking of a red herring.
"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion."

A fully functioning brain is not a mature brain which is what most people would expect from a child
in the womb. It is s a brain with no abnormalities which will develop fully into a fine mature brain
if not given the Kermit Gosnell treatment before birth can be achieved, which is what you seem
to be after.

There goes the neighborhood again , pandering third trimester abortions as a justification to outlaw all abortions .

The late second trimester and third trimester abortions are nearly all for pregnancy complications , in particular for fetal abnormalities .

Between 0% and 200% of the poverty line has approximately 75% of all abortions , and more than half of those having abortions already have children .

In 1986 the welfare reform act sought to ensure that the welfare queen stereotype did not get compensated for having more children .

I wouldn't outlaw all abortions so your assumptions are typically presumptive bullshit.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Lofting A Bar For A Line "

* Phenomenological Demarcations Resolute Conjectures *

No. I am not thinking of a homonculus. Perhaps you are thinking of a red herring. "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion."

A fully functioning brain is not a mature brain which is what most people would expect from a child in the womb. It is s a brain with no abnormalities which will develop fully into a fine mature brain if not given the Kermit Gosnell treatment before birth can be achieved, which is what you seem to be after.

Apparently , where within such an argument is conscientious objection ?

Where is a legal victim without personification of attributes through projection from a subjective point of view ?

Arguments being presented by this moniker predicate sentience as a necessary physical requisite for sapience , and that a physical requisite for sapience is a minimal standard for an onset of cognizance , or of mind .

A sapient reaction would be evidence for conscientious objection where by empathy one may intervene on behalf of another individual by legal proxy .

* Cede To Constitutional Basis As Education And Move On To Local And Global Carrying Capacity *

I wouldn't outlaw all abortions so your assumptions are typically presumptive bullshit.

The intimidation forwarded by the implication of a third trimester argument without including understood and well known ethical caveats is bull shit .

The incredible notations from blackmun in roe v wade articulate a delineation between federal , state , citizen and individual liberties based upon a birth requirement for citizenship and therefore a birth requirement for equal protection .

The onset of sentience is nearly consistent with the onset of natural viability .

Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ?

" Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ? " * Relocated Opinion Poll Multiple Choice * This is a reproduction of another thread and allows one a choice of more than one option . Feel free to complete a survey at this site - Does Prohibiting Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Apparently , where within such an argument is conscientious objection ?

Where is a legal victim without personification of attributes through projection from a subjective point of view ?

Arguments being presented by this moniker predicate sentience as a necessary physical requisite for sapience , and that a physical requisite for sapience is a minimal standard for an onset of cognizance , or of mind .

A sapient reaction would be evidence for conscientious objection where by empathy one may intervene on behalf of another individual by legal proxy .

Okay. I think you've been given enough rope and time to come up with a rational argument and, your
needlessly complex, multi-syllabic verbiage not withstanding, shows what a whack-a doodle you are.

Your faulty reasoning not only condones abortion but would allow one to simply murder anyone who
you find is not mentally aware (coma patients, seniors, victims of brain injuries, etc.) based on the fact they
are not presently mentally cognizant. Therefore the State is free to kill them.

I'm done keeping you company. I've seen more than enough.