Typhoid: m2313: Typhoid: Yeah congratulations men, you've managed to keep women from having equal rights this long. Let's see how long you can do it!

As long as you stay in the kitchen.

My pies will be poisoned, but you're welcome to them.

"And madame, if you were my wife, I would eat it!"

libbynomore2: nick

I do not feel guilty about anything that this country has done. Your map shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of history. Are you feeling sorry for the poor Indians??

all that so we can have this:

Typhoid: My pies will be poisoned, but you're welcome to them.

Not a pie person, and I've been told the cake is a lie.
Maybe poison cookies?

Bauer: george tenant told george bush that 'iraq wmds' were a slam dunk.

-wmds were a lie.

the cia helped fuel the lies for the war.

he got a medal for his part.

-the whole world knows this...end of story.

any credibility we had as a nation is gone.

sorry nicksteel...that you choose not to see it.

one thing is for sure...we can only go up from here.

so...i guess we have george w. bush to thank for pushing us all over the edge...so now...we can finally, honestly, take a good look at ourselves.

-and try to move foward.

i'm not impressed so far.

Then take your sorry ass and move somewhere else. You are nothing more than a pimple on the ass cheek of the good men and women who live in this country.

Take your pessimistic attitude and go live in some other country and see if it is any better. I hear that there are lots of empty apartments in Tehran these days. You could probably get one real cheap. And after you get your ass handed to you a few times by some real men, come on back to the States and then tell us how bad things are here.

captain_heroic44: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Nocens: He's actually 100% correct.

They don't constitutionally have the power they claim to wield. But, they are the most powerful branch of the government and the only checks against them are long in between.

Somewhere along the line, SCOTUS deviated in its mission to interpret the Constitution to the letter forcing American society to evolve within its constraints and embarked on interpretation to fit society's evolution.

The judiciary is the most powerful branch? What a ridiculous assertion. SCOTUS takes around 100 cases a year, most of which have no practical effect whatsoever on the lives of the citizenry, or deal with procedural issues. When they do have a "landmark" opinion, it's usually a slight tweak in what the standard currently is. Congress meanwhile has regulated every single aspect of our lives without exception. Besides what has become a general police power via the Commerce Clause, they have the power to impeach the President and strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. Congress is by far the most powerful of the branches, and always has been. The framers ("founding fathers," is a little too deity-like for my liking) recognized this in the Federalist Papers among other founding era documents.

This is where I stopped reading. You are an idiot.

Fine, name something they have not regulated.

trixter_nl: They dont claim to give you energy? Hmm.. I think they do. From what I read its on making a "medical claim" and not "changes a function of the body". There is a difference between the two. Here are a couple of examples

fda.gov
If the soap makes a medical claim, such as that it will cure dandruff, it is considered a drug and must carry required drug labeling and also meet FDA safety and effectiveness requirements.

fda.gov
However, FDA does not regulate such products unless the manufacturer intends to make a medical claim.

fda.gov
A medical claim for condoms as being effective against STDs requires that appropriate laboratory tests be performed.

I think claiming to give you energy is sufficiently vague that the FDA doesn't get involved, because it doesn't address a specific bodily function . In my opinion, any energy you get from those things comes from the caffeine in them, and nothing else.

For everything else you said, if you read what I said, I said they aren't allowed to claim either a medical benefit OR changing a function of the body. So you can bring up as many examples as you like where people got in trouble for medical claims, it doesn't address the other aspect. I think claims related to bodily function may ALSO get you into trouble. As the makers of some bigger-penis-making products have already found out. It may be that claiming to be a dietary supplement gives them some protection, but it has to actually be a dietary supplement I guess.

From FDA.gov ( note the 2nd part I bolded):

The terms "drug," "device," and "cosmetic" are defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (Sections 201 (g), (h) and (i)):

The term "drug" includes articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals and articles (other than foods and dietary supplements) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.

captain_heroic44: Congress meanwhile has regulated every single aspect of our lives without exception...

This is where I stopped reading. You are an idiot.

Ok, prove me wrong, name one area of our lives that Congress has not regulated in some way.

trixter_nl: Githerax: nicksteel: where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??



The purple part.

to a point the red part too. I come from a little tribe known as the Cherokee, they used to live in the Georgia area, and were sequestered to a reservation in Georgia until gold was discovered there. At that time there were some SCOTUS cases where SCOTUS said "you are indians, you have no purpose in this court, GTFO" and in a followup case they did rule that Georgia could not boot em off the reservation and Andrew Jackson said "Marshall made his decision, lets see him enforce it" and the forced death march to Oklahoma began. For this death march Jackson was placed on the $20, go figure.

Indians were a hindrance to progress. It was only a matter of time before you got your asses kicked. Your way of life way backward and inefficient. Couple that with a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious (you were hopelessly outnumbered), you set yourselves up for extinction.

Githerax: nicksteel: where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??



The purple part.

we bought most of the land west of the Mississippi and the land east of the Mississippi was ours as a result of the revolution.


And on top of that, your asshole buddy was talking about post WWII. So unless your grasp of US history is totally farked up, your map does not apply.

Bauer: nicksteel: Bauer: nicksteel: Bauer: "where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??"...nicksteel, 2009, farker.

-remember this day boys...for it will be yours for all time.

wtf!?!

i'll have what your smoking.

"I guess that means that you cannot answer my question. I didn't think you could. Not honestly."

-open you eyes and look around.

there's your short answer.

if you cannot acknowledge that the united states has covertly altered the governments of many, many foreign nations, for many, many years...in order to achieve a better vantage point (MONEY, LAND, WEALTH), then you are a god damned retard ill-informed.

and probably not worth the time to answer in any more depth than that.

-go read a book that the state didn't write for you.

seriously.

I see, you have retreated from your original position of empire building and conquering nations to covertly altered governments.

Nice job.

-ok...go no further.

iraq

you mean that country where we disposed the evil dictator and then set up a democratic form of government that we are now in the process of giving back to them? That Iraq? Try harder.

cybrwzrd: captain_heroic44: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Nocens: He's actually 100% correct.

They don't constitutionally have the power they claim to wield. But, they are the most powerful branch of the government and the only checks against them are long in between.

Somewhere along the line, SCOTUS deviated in its mission to interpret the Constitution to the letter forcing American society to evolve within its constraints and embarked on interpretation to fit society's evolution.

The judiciary is the most powerful branch? What a ridiculous assertion. SCOTUS takes around 100 cases a year, most of which have no practical effect whatsoever on the lives of the citizenry, or deal with procedural issues. When they do have a "landmark" opinion, it's usually a slight tweak in what the standard currently is. Congress meanwhile has regulated every single aspect of our lives without exception. Besides what has become a general police power via the Commerce Clause, they have the power to impeach the President and strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. Congress is by far the most powerful of the branches, and always has been. The framers ("founding fathers," is a little too deity-like for my liking) recognized this in the Federalist Papers among other founding era documents.

This is where I stopped reading. You are an idiot.

Fine, name something they have not regulated.

Identify the federal law which governs your conduct in the bedroom.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: captain_heroic44: Congress meanwhile has regulated every single aspect of our lives without exception...

This is where I stopped reading. You are an idiot.

Ok, prove me wrong, name one area of our lives that Congress has not regulated in some way.

Identify the act of Congress that restricts your ability to worship.

nastyboi

On behalf of all the men and women who have fought and died defending this country, eat shiat and die. And do it soon.

captain_heroic44: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: captain_heroic44: Congress meanwhile has regulated every single aspect of our lives without exception...

This is where I stopped reading. You are an idiot.

Ok, prove me wrong, name one area of our lives that Congress has not regulated in some way.

Identify the act of Congress that restricts your ability to worship.

They won't let me masterbate in public buildings.

nicksteel: Indians were a hindrance to progress. It was only a matter of time before you got your asses kicked. Your way of life way backward and inefficient. Couple that with a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious (you were hopelessly outnumbered), you set yourselves up for extinction.

I know you are trolling, but there's substantial irony here, because of all the indian tribes, the Cherokee were particularly known for living well side-by-side with Europeans, adopted new technology, and developed their own written language. In the end, most of them got booted by the whites anyway. It wasn't about progress, it was about cultural dominance. Just sayin'.

I think it's adorable that the gun totin', flag wavin' "if you don' like it, GIT OUT!" red states are the ones that are the most subsistent on the federal government, per capita, and contribute the least to GDP.

I mean, it's like the kids that live in the basement that never get a steady job or make something better of themselves. In America's case, well, at least they like the house and would die defending the property. Happy 4th, you lovable rednecked bastards.

Animatronik: nicksteel: Indians were a hindrance to progress. It was only a matter of time before you got your asses kicked. Your way of life way backward and inefficient. Couple that with a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious (you were hopelessly outnumbered), you set yourselves up for extinction.

I know you are trolling, but there's substantial irony here, because of all the indian tribes, the Cherokee were particularly known for living well side-by-side with Europeans, adopted new technology, and developed their own written language. In the end, most of them got booted by the whites anyway. It wasn't about progress, it was about cultural dominance. Just sayin'.

I am NOT trolling. Adapt or die. The Indians did not adapt. I will give you the Cherokee, they went on to own slaves. Kinda makes it hard to feel like you were oppressed when you were doing it yourselves.

nastyboi: They won't let me masterbate in public buildings.

Only God knows when the Second Coming will happen my friend.

So, like, why is Obama in Russia today? You'd have thought he might wanna be here.

buzzvert: I think it's adorable that the gun totin', flag wavin' "if you don' like it, GIT OUT!" red states are the ones that are the most subsistent on the federal government, per capita, and contribute the least to GDP.

I mean, it's like the kids that live in the basement that never get a steady job or make something better of themselves. In America's case, well, at least they like the house and would die defending the property. Happy 4th, you lovable rednecked bastards.

There are no pure red states and there are no pure blue states. And that simple fact makes your whining and crying all the more pathetic.

DarkAvised: So, like, why is Obama in Russia today? You'd have thought he might wanna be here.

There's going to be a nuclear blast in DC eliminating all his opponents, and quick thorough assassinations will of the remainders will follow.

Then he will fly back here, claim it was a conservative domestic terrorist attack, and assume martial law, starting a second Civil War, using purges against dissidents, in which all the true Americans will be killed.

We warned you about this evil socialist.

nicksteel: Animatronik: nicksteel: Indians were a hindrance to progress. It was only a matter of time before you got your asses kicked. Your way of life way backward and inefficient. Couple that with a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious (you were hopelessly outnumbered), you set yourselves up for extinction.

I know you are trolling, but there's substantial irony here, because of all the indian tribes, the Cherokee were particularly known for living well side-by-side with Europeans, adopted new technology, and developed their own written language. In the end, most of them got booted by the whites anyway. It wasn't about progress, it was about cultural dominance. Just sayin'.

I am NOT trolling. Adapt or die. The Indians did not adapt. I will give you the Cherokee, they went on to own slaves. Kinda makes it hard to feel like you were oppressed when you were doing it yourselves.

Many Indians DID adapt, they were still treated badly by the whites because they were fewer in number and weren't able to fight as well. It's a classic case of one human clan being afraid of the other and acting to eradicate it out of fear. The whites feared organized Indian tribes the way Rome feared Carthage. We don't see it that way because it's so close in our history.

captain_heroic44: Identify the federal law which governs your conduct in the bedroom.

Prostitution is illegal on federal land, near military bases, etc. It is illegal to transport prostitutes across state lines. It is illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of meeting an underaged teen or prostitute for sex. It is against military law to commit adultery.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with the conduct, or even some of these laws (although I think prostitution should be legal, and actually is in my state without issue). But you asked if there was a law regulating bedroom conduct, so there you have it.

captain_heroic44: Identify the act of Congress that restricts your ability to worship.

It is against federal law to use peyote or marijuana for religious purposes.

Animatronik: nicksteel: Animatronik: nicksteel: Indians were a hindrance to progress. It was only a matter of time before you got your asses kicked. Your way of life way backward and inefficient. Couple that with a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious (you were hopelessly outnumbered), you set yourselves up for extinction.

I know you are trolling, but there's substantial irony here, because of all the indian tribes, the Cherokee were particularly known for living well side-by-side with Europeans, adopted new technology, and developed their own written language. In the end, most of them got booted by the whites anyway. It wasn't about progress, it was about cultural dominance. Just sayin'.

I am NOT trolling. Adapt or die. The Indians did not adapt. I will give you the Cherokee, they went on to own slaves. Kinda makes it hard to feel like you were oppressed when you were doing it yourselves.

Many Indians DID adapt, they were still treated badly by the whites because they were fewer in number and weren't able to fight as well. It's a classic case of one human clan being afraid of the other and acting to eradicate it out of fear. The whites feared organized Indian tribes the way Rome feared Carthage. We don't see it that way because it's so close in our history.

MANY Indians adapted?? I don't think I would use the word many. If Indians back in the 1800s were anything like the Indians that I met in South Dakota, I can see why the white people chased them out. It had nothing to do with fear. It had a lot to do with attitude, then and now.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: captain_heroic44: Identify the federal law which governs your conduct in the bedroom.

Prostitution is illegal on federal land, near military bases, etc. It is illegal to transport prostitutes across state lines. It is illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of meeting an underaged teen or prostitute for sex. It is against military law to commit adultery.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with the conduct, or even some of these laws (although I think prostitution should be legal, and actually is in my state without issue). But you asked if there was a law regulating bedroom conduct, so there you have it.

captain_heroic44: Identify the act of Congress that restricts your ability to worship.

It is against federal law to use peyote or marijuana for religious purposes.

that is not true.

nicksteel: nastyboi

On behalf of all the men and women who have fought and died defending this country, eat shiat and die. And do it soon.

Thanks for proving my point.

nicksteel: There are no pure red states and there are no pure blue states. And that simple fact makes your whining and crying all the more pathetic.

Why, yes, there is no simple right or wrong, yes or no, libtard or conservative delineations! What a startling and intellectual revelation. Now, can you go back through your posts in this thread and revise them with your newfound insight? And when you're done with that, could you make me a hot dog?

nicksteel: that is not true.

Yes it is.

Or at least it still was when I left work from the DOJ this Thursday. If it changed between yesterday and today I apologize.

Animatronik:
For everything else you said, if you read what I said, I said they aren't allowed to claim either a medical benefit OR changing a function of the body. So you can bring up as many examples as you like where people got in trouble for medical claims, it doesn't address the other aspect. I think claims related to bodily function may ALSO get you into trouble. As the makers of some bigger-penis-making products have already found out. It may be that claiming to be a dietary supplement gives them some protection, but it has to actually be a dietary supplement I guess.



With enzyte it was over medical claims, or at least that is what the lawyers for enzyte said on camera in an interview over their FDA issues. Specifically it had to do with the advertising and not the product.

The definition of a medical claim includes drugs, so if there is a medical claim about something that changes the bodys function then the claim has to be verified, in virtually every case the product has to be ruled safe and effective (as claimed) but it boils down to the medical claim unless you can show me where the FDA regulates drugs that do not have any medical claims attached to them.

I am just saying that its at a higher level, they go after the medical claims (whether they are made to doctors to get them to dispense a product or tv adverts). Without a medical claim you cannot guarantee that anything is effective, since it is tested to see if its effective at the specific medical claim and not effective at something totally unrelated.

I would actually have less problem with it if it were the way you present it, because they would be going after the product and not the speech, but unfortunately it is on the claim itself.

can you find a single instance where they go after a product without any claims? hint: you cant submit it to the FDA for approval without making a claim as to what it will do.

nastyboi: nicksteel: nastyboi

On behalf of all the men and women who have fought and died defending this country, eat shiat and die. And do it soon.

Thanks for proving my point.

I am sure that you think that I have proven your point. You are such a complete idiot that you would think that. You are not worth the sweat off the balls of any member of the Armed Services. Hell, I'd even throw in people who work for the Post Office.

Smug little punks like you would be the first to run to those patriotic citizens for protection. And they would give it to you.

So at which point did we stop fearing the Redman, Animatronik? When we killed the first batch with small pox, the second with muskets, or the third with alcohol and welfare?

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: nicksteel: that is not true.

Yes it is.

Or at least it still was when I left work from the DOJ this Thursday. If it changed between yesterday and today I apologize.

May 29, 2002

Federal Court Rules in Rastafarian Case

In an opinion issued Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, some marijuana-using Rastafarians may be protected under a religious-freedom law passed by Congress in 1993.

The case began in 1991 when Benny Guerrero, returning from a trip to Hawaii, was stopped by officials at Guam's international airport. Mr. Guerrero evidently attracted the eyes of authority because he was carrying a book about Rastafarianism and marijuana. A search of Guerrero's luggage turned up five ounces of marijuana and some Cannabis seeds. He was arrested and charged with importation of a controlled substance.

In his defense, Guerrero argued that he was a practicing Rastafarian and that his use of marijuana was religious. His importation of the herb was, he argued, protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that blocks the federal government from unjustifiably infringing on a person's practice of religion.

captain_heroic44:
Identify the act of Congress that restricts your ability to worship.

21 USC 821 comes to mind, but I may be wrong. 21 USC is the food and drug statutes, 800 or so is where the drug statutes start, and many drugs are banned, yet some religions use them, and who is to say that you should not be allowed to create a new one.

Some really old religions use intoxicants, including native american ones, however the way it works there is that certain tribes are granted permission only under specific circumstances, and whitey cant join that religion (one restriction is that you have to be a tribal member, approved by the dept of interior, bureau of indian affairs and get issued a tribal identification card from BIA to be a tribal member).

anything else?

buzzvert: nicksteel: There are no pure red states and there are no pure blue states. And that simple fact makes your whining and crying all the more pathetic.

Why, yes, there is no simple right or wrong, yes or no, libtard or conservative delineations! What a startling and intellectual revelation. Now, can you go back through your posts in this thread and revise them with your newfound insight? And when you're done with that, could you make me a hot dog?

good, I have taught you something.

ALAKAZAM!!! You are a hot dog!!

trixter_nl: captain_heroic44:
Identify the act of Congress that restricts your ability to worship.

21 USC 821 comes to mind, but I may be wrong. 21 USC is the food and drug statutes, 800 or so is where the drug statutes start, and many drugs are banned, yet some religions use them, and who is to say that you should not be allowed to create a new one.

Some really old religions use intoxicants, including native american ones, however the way it works there is that certain tribes are granted permission only under specific circumstances, and whitey cant join that religion (one restriction is that you have to be a tribal member, approved by the dept of interior, bureau of indian affairs and get issued a tribal identification card from BIA to be a tribal member).

anything else?

"are granted permission" is not the same as restrictions

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: It is illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of meeting an underaged teen or prostitute for sex.

change that a bit. It is illegal to cross state lines (or even if you dont, the intarweb is enough even if its the same state) to hook up with anyone that is of the age of consent in that given state but under the age of 18. Further it is illegal to fly to a foreign country and have sex with anyone under the age of 18. Federal law does not make a distinction between the traveler being under/over 18, so a 17 year old takes a plane ride to nevada to hook up with a 17 year old (perhaps on a school trip??) and they bang. Both of them are not violating federal law.

It is illegal to send a picture via the intarweb, mobile phone, or similar of someone nekid under the age of 18, even if that someone is you. That can be considered bedroom activity. The person you are sending it to can be next door, in the same state but its considered interstate because of an expansion that allows virtually everything to be interstate now.

trixter_nl: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: It is illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of meeting an underaged teen or prostitute for sex.

change that a bit. It is illegal to cross state lines (or even if you dont, the intarweb is enough even if its the same state) to hook up with anyone that is of the age of consent in that given state but under the age of 18. Further it is illegal to fly to a foreign country and have sex with anyone under the age of 18. Federal law does not make a distinction between the traveler being under/over 18, so a 17 year old takes a plane ride to nevada to hook up with a 17 year old (perhaps on a school trip??) and they bang. Both of them are not violating federal law.

It is illegal to send a picture via the intarweb, mobile phone, or similar of someone nekid under the age of 18, even if that someone is you. That can be considered bedroom activity. The person you are sending it to can be next door, in the same state but its considered interstate because of an expansion that allows virtually everything to be interstate now.

Both of you are reaching a bit. What about perverts who get sexual satisfaction by killing people. Is the government interfering in their sex lives or is it protecting the public?

nicksteel:
"are granted permission" is not the same as restrictions

you are right, however the restriction is for everyone who is not granted permission to violate that restriction. As such whitey (or indians of a different tribe, mexicans, blacks, etc) cant practice that religion legally. The government has said it is illegal.

captain_heroic44:
Absolute hokum. Tyranny is concentration of too much power into too few hands, or unjustly cruel or oppressive government. Requiring people to use seat belts, a law which manifestly causes people to act for their own good, in no meaningful sense constitutes "tyranny."

And how the attempt to concentrate all of our power into the hands of police is not building towards tyranny eludes me.

Please, explain to me how it's not reaching a point of tyranny when the populace can be stopped for more and more basic and silly things (to the point where, "he was eying me funny, so I checked from identification" from police) has become justified and defended by the court system.

I am as capable, if not more capable of defending myself from the vagrancy that is modern criminal activity much better than the police can. Taking away my right to defend myself (either through the abrogation of the 2nd amendment) and giving that power to some stranger who may be 10 - 20 or even an hour away seems downright stupid.

trixter_nl: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: It is illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of meeting an underaged teen or prostitute for sex.

change that a bit. It is illegal to cross state lines (or even if you dont, the intarweb is enough even if its the same state) to hook up with anyone that is of the age of consent in that given state but under the age of 18. Further it is illegal to fly to a foreign country and have sex with anyone under the age of 18. Federal law does not make a distinction between the traveler being under/over 18, so a 17 year old takes a plane ride to nevada to hook up with a 17 year old (perhaps on a school trip??) and they bang. Both of them are not violating federal law.

It is illegal to send a picture via the intarweb, mobile phone, or similar of someone nekid under the age of 18, even if that someone is you. That can be considered bedroom activity. The person you are sending it to can be next door, in the same state but its considered interstate because of an expansion that allows virtually everything to be interstate now.

Is it not also illegal to bang your 9 year old daughter? It's your bedroom (well her's unless mommy want in on the action)

nicksteel:
Both of you are reaching a bit. What about perverts who get sexual satisfaction by killing people. Is the government interfering in their sex lives or is it protecting the public?

you should read a bit more of what I have said in this thread, specifically the part about how your rights end at the tip of someone elses nose. You do not have the right to take away anyone elses rights, which includes that whole pesky life part of it. I think its a bit of a stretch to negate that aspect of it.

/why won't my esses work the way I wants?

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: captain_heroic44: Identify the federal law which governs your conduct in the bedroom.

Prostitution is illegal on federal land, near military bases, etc. It is illegal to transport prostitutes across state lines. It is illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of meeting an underaged teen or prostitute for sex. It is against military law to commit adultery.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with the conduct, or even some of these laws (although I think prostitution should be legal, and actually is in my state without issue). But you asked if there was a law regulating bedroom conduct, so there you have it.

captain_heroic44: Identify the act of Congress that restricts your ability to worship.

It is against federal law to use peyote or marijuana for religious purposes.

It is against federal law to use peyote or marijuana under certain circumstances. That these restrictions have an incidental effect on religious practice is irrelevant. There is no federal law restricting worship.

Or, alternatively, I can take a federal law restricting the ability to detonate a nuke as a restriction on worship of radical Islam. How can we tolerate such heinous persecution?

There still has to be an interstate component to Mann Act violations, which makes it indisputably within the purview of the commerce power.

trixter_nl: nicksteel:
"are granted permission" is not the same as restrictions

you are right, however the restriction is for everyone who is not granted permission to violate that restriction. As such whitey (or indians of a different tribe, mexicans, blacks, etc) cant practice that religion legally. The government has said it is illegal.

It is a tribal religion. What part of that do you not understand??

captain_heroic44: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: captain_heroic44: Identify the federal law which governs your conduct in the bedroom.

Prostitution is illegal on federal land, near military bases, etc. It is illegal to transport prostitutes across state lines. It is illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of meeting an underaged teen or prostitute for sex. It is against military law to commit adultery.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with the conduct, or even some of these laws (although I think prostitution should be legal, and actually is in my state without issue). But you asked if there was a law regulating bedroom conduct, so there you have it.

captain_heroic44: Identify the act of Congress that restricts your ability to worship.

It is against federal law to use peyote or marijuana for religious purposes.

It is against federal law to use peyote or marijuana under certain circumstances. That these restrictions have an incidental effect on religious practice is irrelevant. There is no federal law restricting worship.

Or, alternatively, I can take a federal law restricting the ability to detonate a nuke as a restriction on worship of radical Islam. How can we tolerate such heinous persecution?

There still has to be an interstate component to Mann Act violations, which makes it indisputably within the purview of the commerce power.

And to be perfectly clear, what the Mann Act regulates is not bedroom conduct, but interstate movement for sexual purposes. We're talking about interstate movement of minors and commercial sex traffickers. This has a highly public component to it. We're definitely talking about a whole different level than private bedroom conduct between consenting adults.

Bio-nic: captain_heroic44:
Absolute hokum. Tyranny is concentration of too much power into too few hands, or unjustly cruel or oppressive government. Requiring people to use seat belts, a law which manifestly causes people to act for their own good, in no meaningful sense constitutes "tyranny."

And how the attempt to concentrate all of our power into the hands of police is not building towards tyranny eludes me.

Please, explain to me how it's not reaching a point of tyranny when the populace can be stopped for more and more basic and silly things (to the point where, "he was eying me funny, so I checked from identification" from police) has become justified and defended by the court system.

I am as capable, if not more capable of defending myself from the vagrancy that is modern criminal activity much better than the police can. Taking away my right to defend myself (either through the abrogation of the 2nd amendment) and giving that power to some stranger who may be 10 - 20 or even an hour away seems downright stupid.

I think that if you spend a little bit of time in a real tyranny you will see that they do not have courts. You will see that they don't need any excuse to lock you up or kill you.

So stop crying about things that aren't real.

WhyteRaven74: MajorityWhip: Jefferson Lives - John Adams

For a couple more hours anyways.

Amazing that the two men died on the same day and that the day was July 4 1826.

Oh, you got that! You must read books.