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?

No. The intoxicants are prohibited. Not the worship. Generally applicable laws that have an incidental impact on religion can't be counted for reasons stated in previous post.

Lenny_da_Hog: MajorityWhip: Jefferson Lives - John Adams

Oddly enough, today is also the anniversary of the death of both of them.

Can someone give the Professor a cigar?

evilgreg: CheekyMunky: So if by "we" you mean "white males," then yeah, I guess may have a point. If by "we" you mean "people in America," however, then we, as a whole, are decidedly MORE free in recent decades than any time before. There are certainly some bubbles in the wallpaper yet - and I'm certainly not defending any of the things you listed - but overall it's been progress. Yes, some of it has required some sacrifice on the part of white males. Suck it up.

/white male
/not guilty
/not selfish

No, no. Repeat after me: "I'm Whitey, and I apologize."

Yes, because when we talk about freedom the people should ask "Am I more free" and not "Are we more free".

Taking this argument to the extreme, the peak of freedom can be argued to be when Louis XIV said "L'Etat, c'est moi"

nicksteel: 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.

Except that if we DON'T argue and stop it, we are lead by the balls INTO tyranny...

Yes, I understand that if the US was real tyranny we would have secret laws for people and simply trust that the government knows what they are doing.

Allow large private corporations to take over our prisons security at profit.

Restrict people from using their duly purchased merchandise for private profit and pleasure

Have black clad men and women bursting through our doors to take people off the street in the middle of the night and hold them without trial or redress.

wiretap our peoples phone conversations without their consent.

disarm the populace during emergencies "for their own good," make them pay for the welfare of drug addicts, illegal aliens, and other questionably legal things. We could almost...

wait...

You tell me to stop crying, when crying doesn't do anything to stop the above. Preventing it to begin with is the only way to stop it.

Have you tried today? Yesterday? Last week? Last month? Year? EVER?

GTFO troll, unless you have.

nicksteel: 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??

That only certain pre-approved people can worship it, you do not have the right to worship that religion, or a modified version of it, if you are not approved.

You do not have the freedom to choose the religion you choose. I understand the argument that the government can restrict the religion if it violates someone elses rights, such as mayan sacrifices of humans, but this is not the case with this instance, you are not violating anyone elses rights if you choose that religion, yet it is illegal if you do not get approved by the BIA to be a member of that tribe. The religion itself is not a tribal religion any more than being jewish (religious) means you are from israel, you can convert at any time to that religion or practice a modified form of it if you choose.

Now since pandoras box is opened lets look at where this power comes from.
Article I Section 8 Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

at the time that was written "regulate" meant "to make regular" and regular there meant "common or ordinary". In essence the legislature had the ability to make commerce regular between those entities. Not to pass laws banning it, licensing it, or otherwise restricting it. If you dont believe me, please do some research into the contemporary usage of regulate in the late 1700s. There are legal scholars of the day who wrote on this phrase.

Nothing that is inside the state is allowed, but if you read the senate hearings on the drug laws, they said that because congress cannot tell which drugs are involved in interstate and foreign commerce, and because some are, they all are. This was upheld in 2001 with the oakland cannibis club (medical marijuana) they proved that everything came from within California, specifically keeping records for this very argument. The seeds, fertilizer, etc were all from within the state.

Now we can go back further on to how this power to legislate everything came to be. We can go back to 1942 in Filburn SCOTUS said that if enough people did something without even commerce involved, then it would eventually affect interstate and foreign commerce, because people would not buy goods they would produce them themselves, and thus they can legislate it. The specific case was a farmer grew 1 acre of wheat on his own property, he picked it, his wife ground it into flour, and baked it into bread, which the farmer and his wife ate, they did not sell it, trade it or otherwise give it away. The government said they had to grow 12 acres instead. He did not want to do this, so he challenged their decision.

As a result of this decision the 10th amendment took a hit (it states anything not specifically granted to the feds is a right of the state), and the interstate and foreign commerce clause was amended without ratification to mean "anything congress wants".

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.

Your comments seem so rational and level-headed until you use the term "whitey" which I would normally assume to be facetious except for the fact that you're of non-white Cherokee decent.

Bio-nic: nicksteel: 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.

Except that if we DON'T argue and stop it, we are lead by the balls INTO tyranny...

Yes, I understand that if the US was real tyranny we would have secret laws for people and simply trust that the government knows what they are doing.

Allow large private corporations to take over our prisons security at profit.

Restrict people from using their duly purchased merchandise for private profit and pleasure

Have black clad men and women bursting through our doors to take people off the street in the middle of the night and hold them without trial or redress.

wiretap our peoples phone conversations without their consent.

disarm the populace during emergencies "for their own good," make them pay for the welfare of drug addicts, illegal aliens, and other questionably legal things. We could almost...

wait...

You tell me to stop crying, when crying doesn't do anything to stop the above. Preventing it to begin with is the only way to stop it.

Have you tried today? Yesterday? Last week? Last month? Year? EVER?

GTFO troll, unless you have.

go live in North Korea for a year and then tell me how bad things are in the USA.

captain_heroic44:

No. The intoxicants are prohibited. Not the worship. Generally applicable laws that have an incidental impact on religion can't be counted for reasons stated in previous post.

the intoxicants are a required part of the worship, so you are not allowed to practice the religion without permission.

The reality is that they should not ban things on the federal level like this anyway, as you put it "for reasons stated in a previous post", and if that were followed, then the tribal lands (which are not part of the state) would be able to allow it and the states can ban it and everyone should be happy. Following the constitution would be an ok thing and these types of discussions would instantly become moot if that were done. Additionally the states would have the power to ban religions per the constitution since it says "Congress shall pass no law ..." and thus its a right of the state under the 10th amendment, and if the people dont like it they can go to a different state or they can vote to get that state to change the law. That is the way it was written, and if people dont like what is in the constitution they should read the section on ratification and either push lawmakers in congress to propose an amendment or push the states to have a constitutional convention - both of them require ratification by the states. I am just saying that the constitution should be followed and not ignored because of some "higher purpose".

scott88008:

Your comments seem so rational and level-headed until you use the term "whitey" which I would normally assume to be facetious except for the fact that you're of non-white Cherokee decent.

heh I am also of white decent, does that help? :)

I did get my BIA issued card proving my bloodline, which is a legal requirement to join the tribe, and become a citizen of the cherokee nation. So I have it all, I will be accepted by everyone now, I am both a minority and a white man! yeah baby :P

trixter_nl: nicksteel: 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??

That only certain pre-approved people can worship it, you do not have the right to worship that religion, or a modified version of it, if you are not approved.

You do not have the freedom to choose the religion you choose. I understand the argument that the government can restrict the religion if it violates someone elses rights, such as mayan sacrifices of humans, but this is not the case with this instance, you are not violating anyone elses rights if you choose that religion, yet it is illegal if you do not get approved by the BIA to be a member of that tribe. The religion itself is not a tribal religion any more than being jewish (religious) means you are from israel, you can convert at any time to that religion or practice a modified form of it if you choose.

Now since pandoras box is opened lets look at where this power comes from.
Article I Section 8 Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

at the time that was written "regulate" meant "to make regular" and regular there meant "common or ordinary". In essence the legislature had the ability to make commerce regular between those entities. Not to pass laws banning it, licensing it, or otherwise restricting it. If you dont believe me, please do some research into the contemporary usage of regulate in the late 1700s. There are legal scholars of the day who wrote on this phrase.

Nothing that is inside the state is allowed, but if you read the senate hearings on the drug laws, they said that because congress cannot tell which drugs are involved in interstate and foreign commerce, and because some are, they all are. This was upheld in 2001 with the oakland cannibis club (medical marijuana) they proved that everything came from within California, specifically keeping records for this very argument. The seeds, fertilizer, etc were all from within the state.

Now we can go back further on to how this power to legislate everything came to be. We can go back to 1942 in Filburn SCOTUS said that if enough people did something without even commerce involved, then it would eventually affect interstate and foreign commerce, because people would not buy goods they would produce them themselves, and thus they can legislate it. The specific case was a farmer grew 1 acre of wheat on his own property, he picked it, his wife ground it into flour, and baked it into bread, which the farmer and his wife ate, they did not sell it, trade it or otherwise give it away. The government said they had to grow 12 acres instead. He did not want to do this, so he challenged their decision.

As a result of this decision the 10th amendment took a hit (it states anything not specifically granted to the feds is a right of the state), and the interstate and foreign commerce clause was amended without ratification to mean "anything congress wants".

you take an extremely minor religious group and decide somehow that it is the norm by which the country must be measured. That's bullshiat. As for the approval process - go get yourself approved and shut the fark up.

As for your farmer and his wheat - more bullshiat. I know farmer today, some are relatives, who do the same basic thing that you outlined. I think you have left out something that would make your argument pointless and stupid.

I have no way of knowing if anything that you are saying is factual. I do know from experience that much of what you say is pure bullshiat.

nicksteel
You missed the point entirely.

Tyranny doesn't happen in a day. It's a slow, corrosive process that takes years. The only way to stop it is to PREVENT IT from starting. Something Americans have been loath to do as we think we need security more than liberty in this modern age.

If we are free, we don't need protection, as we can protect ourselves, or not. It's a choice. You take that choice away, and you see police states like NK and Iran take advantage of

Yes, there are tyrannical governments out there already, NK being one of them. We can dictate that they are horrible and wrong and evil and all other ills, but we are VERY MUCH starting to become like them in disturbing and scary ways...

My point that I think you are carefully ignoring is that we are not a police state YET, but if we keep letting people who abuse power continue to abuse that power, your country will end up in a state much like NK.

Weaver95 [TotalFark] Quote 2009-07-04 10:31:06 AM
I have great difficulty reconciling concepts such as the Patriot act, seatbelt legislation, wall street bailouts, RIAA's perversion of US copyright law and the entire War on Drugs with the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

If you ask me, we've lost our way. we're no longer 'free'. we've been TOLD we're free, but we need permits for everything and today we're going to have to run a gauntlet of drunk driving checkpoints to get around town. Not to mention the fact that the NSA and DHS are going to tap our phones to make sure nobody blows up the statue of Liberty tonight. So I don't think we're 'free'. I think we decidedly less free than we've ever been at any time before in the history of this country.

just my .02 cents.

yeah, but things are different now. we're a nation of 300+million people made up of nearly every different race/religion/creed, living in nearly 30,000 cities. sorry but your libertarian wet-dream of a nonexistent government isn't going to work. we can't all just run around doing what ever the fark we want while shouting freedom.

nicksteel:
you take an extremely minor religious group and decide somehow that it is the norm by which the country must be measured. That's bullshiat. As for the approval process - go get yourself approved and shut the fark up.



Ok you are right, its better to say that minorities have no rights and that the country should not be measured by how it treats those minorities so long as the majority is comfortable.

Yes I took a minority, and yes its hard to apply the rules fairly and evenly across everyone, including the minorities, but the reality is that its harder but much more important to protect the rights of minorities than it is just the majority.


As for your farmer and his wheat - more bullshiat. I know farmer today, some are relatives, who do the same basic thing that you outlined. I think you have left out something that would make your argument pointless and stupid.

Well you should read the filburn case, I gave you enough info to verify it, you refused and just spewed crap. So I will provide you with a url to it so you can read it yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html

And I quote
"A factor of such volume and variability as wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat, with rising prices, may flow into the market and check price increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in the open market."

Thus if you do it at home, you wont buy off the market, which will affect interstate and foreign commerce, so everything is fair game to congress.

this is the particular case that really allowed an out of control government, this is the particular case that really said the 10th amendment is dead, without ratification.

Maybe you should read a bit more and argue a bit less?


I have no way of knowing if anything that you are saying is factual. I do know from experience that much of what you say is pure bullshiat.

well actually no, its either an obvious joke (or I say its a joke in the post if I think its not obvious to prevent people like you from spewing crap about it), or its factual and can be backed up really easily. I even told you the year and one of the parties in the case and instead of typing that into google you just started in with personal insults.

Bio-nic: nicksteel
You missed the point entirely.

Tyranny doesn't happen in a day. It's a slow, corrosive process that takes years. The only way to stop it is to PREVENT IT from starting. Something Americans have been loath to do as we think we need security more than liberty in this modern age.

If we are free, we don't need protection, as we can protect ourselves, or not. It's a choice. You take that choice away, and you see police states like NK and Iran take advantage of

Yes, there are tyrannical governments out there already, NK being one of them. We can dictate that they are horrible and wrong and evil and all other ills, but we are VERY MUCH starting to become like them in disturbing and scary ways...

My point that I think you are carefully ignoring is that we are not a police state YET, but if we keep letting people who abuse power continue to abuse that power, your country will end up in a state much like NK.

I did not miss your point. The point is that you are paranoid. We do not live in a police state, we are not living in anything that resembles a police state. Nobody is abusing any power (now that Bush is no longer in the White House). You are fully protected by the Constitution, the courts and the law.

Take your meds like a good little camper and then go take a nap.

nicksteel: That's bullshiat. As for the approval process - go get yourself approved and shut the fark up.


moar funny pictures

nicksteel:
I did not miss your point. The point is that you are paranoid. We do not live in a police state, we are not living in anything that resembles a police state. Nobody is abusing any power (now that Bush is no longer in the White House). You are fully protected by the Constitution, the courts and the law.


I just want some clarification, do you think that only bush abused power and that no one now is abusing any power?

You do realize that obama said its fair game to use mobile phone location data to track people, even historically, right? And it did not start with bush either, presidents before him were doing a lot of the same things that are going on now. Its not one person, its not one party, its the culture that exists, its the belief that the federal government is all powerful when in fact its supposed to be the most restricted government in the nation (10th amendment).

nastyboi

I don't need a weaselly little canadian telling me that it is wrong to be patriotic. I can understand why a canadian would not be patriotic, seeing as you are nothing more than England's biatch. You have no national identity, everything that you have ever been part of was because of England. Attacking patriotic people is just a sign of your jealously. Hell, canada isn't really a country as long as you have England's Queen in charge. You don't even have the nerve to get your own queen. You have to kiss the ass of some other queen.

trixter_nl: scott88008:

Your comments seem so rational and level-headed until you use the term "whitey" which I would normally assume to be facetious except for the fact that you're of non-white Cherokee decent.

heh I am also of white decent, does that help? :)

I did get my BIA issued card proving my bloodline, which is a legal requirement to join the tribe, and become a citizen of the cherokee nation. So I have it all, I will be accepted by everyone now, I am both a minority and a white man! yeah baby :P

Awesome! Unfortunately, I'm mainly of slave-selling Dutch decent so my ancestors are to blame for everything.

And just to add to the discussion here, the real threat to freedom is not politics but an uneducated and ignorant public (I believe Jefferson said something about Democracy only working if the electorate is educated and informed).

Actually, "regulate" is derived from the latin word 'regula', meaning 'rule', which was applicable in the 18th century too. So while it has indeed been vastly expanded upon, the original intent of the interstate commerce clause was "ruling" and not simply "to make regular".

Just another point you were wrong on.

trixter_nl: nicksteel:
I did not miss your point. The point is that you are paranoid. We do not live in a police state, we are not living in anything that resembles a police state. Nobody is abusing any power (now that Bush is no longer in the White House). You are fully protected by the Constitution, the courts and the law.


I just want some clarification, do you think that only bush abused power and that no one now is abusing any power?

You do realize that obama said its fair game to use mobile phone location data to track people, even historically, right? And it did not start with bush either, presidents before him were doing a lot of the same things that are going on now. Its not one person, its not one party, its the culture that exists, its the belief that the federal government is all powerful when in fact its supposed to be the most restricted government in the nation (10th amendment).

I don't see any powers being abused. But that is why we have courts in this country - if you feel that powers are being used against you illegally, take them to court.

nastyboi: nicksteel: That's bullshiat. As for the approval process - go get yourself approved and shut the fark up.


moar funny pictures

oh goody, a canuck is making fun of me. Wow, that is frightening.

nicksteel: nastyboi

I don't need a weaselly little canadian telling me that it is wrong to be patriotic. I can understand why a canadian would not be patriotic, seeing as you are nothing more than England's biatch. You have no national identity, everything that you have ever been part of was because of England. Attacking patriotic people is just a sign of your jealously. Hell, canada isn't really a country as long as you have England's Queen in charge. You don't even have the nerve to get your own queen. You have to kiss the ass of some other queen.

Who's canadian? Dumbass.

scott88008:
Awesome! Unfortunately, I'm mainly of slave-selling Dutch decent so my ancestors are to blame for everything.

heh, while living in Amsterdam I watched comedy central news, which brought up the point that the Dutch never owned any slaves, so you got that going for you. They added "but they traded the shiat out of em" so maybe it counters it :P


And just to add to the discussion here, the real threat to freedom is not politics but an uneducated and ignorant public (I believe Jefferson said something about Democracy only working if the electorate is educated and informed).

I think that is a lot of it, a lot of people do not know what the powers and limits are on the government, for example the 10th amendment is clear if its not in the constitution the feds cant do it, and if its not barred by the constitution the states can. Welfare, social security, fdic, war on drugs, war on poverty, federal bureau of education, and more are all unconstitutional. I wish a law was passed (or better a constitutional amendment, but that can be dangerous) that would require congress to specifically outline their constitutional authority to do something. If its not there the law cant be passed. I also wish that the whole concept of a living constitution would die, there is nothing in the constitution that allows for it, and if its not allowed specifically its banned (10th amendment) which means they cant keep reinterpreting it to expand government power. People would see lower taxes if the estimated 80% of the federal government that is not allowed by the constitution is disbaned, people would see more power because much of that would shift to the states (the states CAN do welfare, social security, national insurance, etc) and they can vote on controversial laws through referendums, they can recall elected officials that screw things up, the federal system does not allow for either of those.

It would also mean that if a state goes nuts, the people will not be there, jobs will dry up, income tax will vanish and the state will be forced to comply. With a federal system you even lose that ability - especially since the irs laws say if you work in a foreign country you still owe tax to the US (first $80k is free though unless you spend more than 1 month in the US), and if you renounce citizenship and have more than $500k in assets or $100k/year in employment income you are taxed for life even if you are no longer a citizen, that is presumtive evidence that you renounced to avoid taxes and you have to prove otherwise which means fighting the government in the governments court.

nastyboi: nicksteel: nastyboi

I don't need a weaselly little canadian telling me that it is wrong to be patriotic. I can understand why a canadian would not be patriotic, seeing as you are nothing more than England's biatch. You have no national identity, everything that you have ever been part of was because of England. Attacking patriotic people is just a sign of your jealously. Hell, canada isn't really a country as long as you have England's Queen in charge. You don't even have the nerve to get your own queen. You have to kiss the ass of some other queen.

Who's canadian? Dumbass.

Login: nastyboi (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 452343
Account created: 2009-01-14 16:39:48
Submitted links approved: none
Location: Blackfalds Alberta Canada

Or are you just another lying cocksucker??

NNH
yeah, but things are different now. we're a nation of 300+million people made up of nearly every different race/religion/creed, living in nearly 30,000 cities. sorry but your libertarian wet-dream of a nonexistent government isn't going to work. we can't all just run around doing what ever the fark we want while shouting freedom.

So then I take it you are in favor of a totalitarian police state like North Korea right? After all, if lamenting the growing intrusion of the nanny state is the same thing as libertarian non-existent government, then what you believe in is exactly the same as totalitarianism isn't it?

Asswipe. It amazes me how many stupid people have to be convinced that it is in their own best interests to retain their civil rights and not give too much power to government.

Impudent Domain: NNH
yeah, but things are different now. we're a nation of 300+million people made up of nearly every different race/religion/creed, living in nearly 30,000 cities. sorry but your libertarian wet-dream of a nonexistent government isn't going to work. we can't all just run around doing what ever the fark we want while shouting freedom.

So then I take it you are in favor of a totalitarian police state like North Korea right? After all, if lamenting the growing intrusion of the nanny state is the same thing as libertarian non-existent government, then what you believe in is exactly the same as totalitarianism isn't it?

Asswipe. It amazes me how many stupid people have to be convinced that it is in their own best interests to retain their civil rights and not give too much power to government.

I still have my civil rights. Sorry to hear about your problems.

nicksteel:

Login: nastyboi (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 452343
Account created: 2009-01-14 16:39:48
Submitted links approved: none
Location: Blackfalds Alberta Canada

Or are you just another lying cocksucker??

I live in canada. Doesn't make canadian. My profile clearly states that.


moar funny pictures

I just had this mental image of a fat, drunk, balding uber-jackass gradually causing a backyard 4th of July gather to lose steam.

As the party becomes awkward and dies down, people begin filtering out to their cars. Soon, only the jackass is left there, thinking he has "won" the backyard all to himself.

Rock on, nicksteel, and whatever's left in the cooler you can have.

nastyboi: nicksteel:

Login: nastyboi (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 452343
Account created: 2009-01-14 16:39:48
Submitted links approved: none
Location: Blackfalds Alberta Canada

Or are you just another lying cocksucker??

I live in canada. Doesn't make canadian. My profile clearly states that.


moar funny pictures

as far as I am concerned you are a farking canuck. That is a nice photo of you in the superman uniform. Did your mommy make that for you???

YouWinAgainGravity: Actually, "regulate" is derived from the latin word 'regula', meaning 'rule', which was applicable in the 18th century too. So while it has indeed been vastly expanded upon, the original intent of the interstate commerce clause was "ruling" and not simply "to make regular".

Just another point you were wrong on.

I have not been wrong yet, although I have proved you wrong on multiple occasions. You have yet to be right. Additionally the contemporary use of the word is what I said, not its origin. You are trying to confuse facts for some reason, I think you are hurt over being proved wrong so frequently. For that all I can say is get an education, and shut up until you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTzkOUdmaLo

They give cites and even explain it with pictures and words. I am sure that you can follow along.

You can even verify the cites they give.

Remember context! I am sure that you will try to make a context insensitive argument over what was said, but just take my comments in context as I said them and you will have no problems.

buzzvert: I just had this mental image of a fat, drunk, balding uber-jackass gradually causing a backyard 4th of July gather to lose steam.

As the party becomes awkward and dies down, people begin filtering out to their cars. Soon, only the jackass is left there, thinking he has "won" the backyard all to himself.

Rock on, nicksteel, and whatever's left in the cooler you can have.

Just when I thought this thread had all the assholes it could handle, you prove me wrong.

I'm not here to win anything. I am just spreading the truth.

nicksteel:
I don't see any powers being abused. But that is why we have courts in this country - if you feel that powers are being used against you illegally, take them to court.

what if its the courts that are part of the abuse?

trixter_nl: nicksteel:
I don't see any powers being abused. But that is why we have courts in this country - if you feel that powers are being used against you illegally, take them to court.

what if its the courts that are part of the abuse?

You mean that abuse that is not real?? Sure, let the courts be part of your fantasies.

nicksteel:
You mean that abuse that is not real?? Sure, let the courts be part of your fantasies.

Ahh gotcha. Based on your comments only Bush has abused power, the courts never have, not ever, and neither has anyone else in politics. I understand now.

And if anyone disagrees with you and your kool-aid view they are either an asshole or insane.

Makes perfect sense now.

trixter_nl: I have not been wrong yet, although I have proved you wrong on multiple occasions. You have yet to be right. Additionally the contemporary use of the word is what I said, not its origin. You are trying to confuse facts for some reason, I think you are hurt over being proved wrong so frequently. For that all I can say is get an education, and shut up until you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTzkOUdmaLo

They give cites and even explain it with pictures and words. I am sure that you can follow along.

You can even verify the cites they give.

Remember context! I am sure that you will try to make a context insensitive argument over what was said, but just take my comments in context as I said them and you will have no problems.

No actually, you haven't been right. Your reading comprehension is extremely poor, extrapolating arguments that I never made. You are a very poor student of law, and I hope whatever institute you studied at never gave you a degree, because that would reflect very badly on them.

nicksteel:

as far as I am concerned you are a farking canuck.


moar funny pictures

YouWinAgainGravity:
No actually, you haven't been right. Your reading comprehension is extremely poor, extrapolating arguments that I never made. You are a very poor student of law, and I hope whatever institute you studied at never gave you a degree, because that would reflect very badly on them.

At least I was able to provide cites to specific resources that proved my statements you however had to base your arguments on some belief that people in foreign countries are incapable of learning anything about the US, name calling and other personal attacks, especially when confronted with facts that contradict your world view.

It was nice to get to know you, you have confirmed my faith in the power in the internet and the american education system.

trixter_nl: nicksteel:
You mean that abuse that is not real?? Sure, let the courts be part of your fantasies.

Ahh gotcha. Based on your comments only Bush has abused power, the courts never have, not ever, and neither has anyone else in politics. I understand now.

And if anyone disagrees with you and your kool-aid view they are either an asshole or insane.

Makes perfect sense now.

based on my comments, how do you come to the conclusion that only Bush has abused power and that the courts never have? And the nobody else in politics ever has either??

And how did you get the idea that everybody who disagrees with me is an asshole or insane??

You seem to be making shiat up in your head.

nastyboi: nicksteel:

as far as I am concerned you are a farking canuck.


moar funny pictures

you better behave or I will tell the queen on you.

Asswipe. It amazes me how many stupid people have to be convinced that it is in their own best interests to retain their civil rights and not give too much power to government.

Yeah thats it, I long for a dictator to lord over me. Hey needle dick, recognizing the need for dynamic government to protect and sustain an enterprising and evolving citizenry is not the same as surrendering to totalitarianism.

nicksteel: 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.

Ok, tell you what, if you think that 9th Circuit Court case protects you, go smoke a joint on federal land, tell them it is for religious purposes and see what happens. I will not be looking forward to filling out the new paperwork for you on Monday.

By the way, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was struck down in 1997.

captain_heroic44: 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.

Which is why I thought your counterexample was stupid in the first place and I didn't want to respond to it because I knew this would be your response, but I didn't want to be accused of "ignoring" it either. Obviously anything I point to as an instance of government restricting religious worship you are just going to say, "Illegal for other reasons, incidental effect on religion, not applicable." But in the case of victimless crimes like smoking peyote/marijuana, Congress has no real reason to restrict that in the first place, so yes I would say it needlessly restricts religion.

nicksteel:
based on my comments, how do you come to the conclusion that only Bush has abused power and that the courts never have? And the nobody else in politics ever has either??

because you said there is no abuse now that bush is out of office, and we had an exchange over the fact that others also do it, I suggested that its a bigger problem than one person spanning multiple parties and many people, and you said that you dont see it.



And how did you get the idea that everybody who disagrees with me is an asshole or insane??

because you called one person an asshole and told others that they have having delusions or are paranoid.


You seem to be making shiat up in your head.

just like that. Couldnt have proven it better myself, thanks for the live demo.


As I said it was based on your comments, I did leave the opportunity for there to be parts outside of your comments that could not for obvious reasons, be included in my assessment, so far you have given me nothing to suggest otherwise, only confirmation that the assessment was spot on.

nicksteel:
oh goody, a canuck is making fun of me. Wow, that is frightening.

trixter_nl: nicksteel:
based on my comments, how do you come to the conclusion that only Bush has abused power and that the courts never have? And the nobody else in politics ever has either??

because you said there is no abuse now that bush is out of office, and we had an exchange over the fact that others also do it, I suggested that its a bigger problem than one person spanning multiple parties and many people, and you said that you dont see it.



And how did you get the idea that everybody who disagrees with me is an asshole or insane??

because you called one person an asshole and told others that they have having delusions or are paranoid.


You seem to be making shiat up in your head.

just like that. Couldnt have proven it better myself, thanks for the live demo.


As I said it was based on your comments, I did leave the opportunity for there to be parts outside of your comments that could not for obvious reasons, be included in my assessment, so far you have given me nothing to suggest otherwise, only confirmation that the assessment was spot on.

I see, you really are an idiot. Just because I do not see any abuse does not mean that it isn't happening. Unlike you, I am not all seeing. And my statement does not negate the possibility that people were abusing power before Bush was President.

I call ONE person and asshole and somehow that means that I have called everybody an asshole? Seriously, do you not see why I think you are an idiot and that you are delusional??

In one post you contradict yourself and attack me. That is very intelligent of you. You first accuse me of calling everybody who disagrees with me and asshole and then you admit that I called one person an asshole. And to top it all off, you don't think that you are making shiat up in your head!!

you are a real piece of work.

NNH Quote 2009-07-04 07:39:03 PM
Asswipe. It amazes me how many stupid people have to be convinced that it is in their own best interests to retain their civil rights and not give too much power to government.

Yeah thats it, I long for a dictator to lord over me. Hey needle dick, recognizing the need for dynamic government to protect and sustain an enterprising and evolving citizenry is not the same as surrendering to totalitarianism.

ZOOOM! right over your head! You didn't even get the fact that I was taking an extreme position to make fun of your extreme position. God your stupid.

wake up

nastyboi: nicksteel:
oh goody, a canuck is making fun of me. Wow, that is frightening.

Is any of this true?

" Bio:
Ex-firefighter, ex-military, currently a self-employed consultant. I am a search and rescue volunteer and have done missions all over the world."


You are too immature for any of the above to be true.

Suede head: Is this a joke? The Founding Fathers were a bunch of slave-owning English aristocrats.

Name a single "Founding Father" that was born outside of the 13 colonies.

nicksteel:
I see, you really are an idiot. Just because I do not see any abuse does not mean that it isn't happening. Unlike you, I am not all seeing. And my statement does not negate the possibility that people were abusing power before Bush was President.

I never said that you were all seeing, I even pointed out to something obama is doing that many see as an abuse, specifically that he insists that he can and will get mobile phone location data without a warrant, even historical records. Wired and many others have written articles on this and how many legal scholars disagree with this position. You seem to have ignored this tidbit, which I provided simply because I did not want to assume that you were all seeing. I further asked in the same post (which was the original one that started a conversation with you) about the other people, both present and historical abusing power. Your response to that was that you see no abuses, even after some were pointed out to you.



I call ONE person and asshole and somehow that means that I have called everybody an asshole? Seriously, do you not see why I think you are an idiot and that you are delusional??

I never said that you called everyone an asshole, I limited it to people who disagree with you, and also left open other things that you have called people. Your reading comprehension fails you young padwan.


In one post you contradict yourself and attack me. That is very intelligent of you. You first accuse me of calling everybody who disagrees with me and asshole and then you admit that I called one person an asshole. And to top it all off, you don't think that you are making shiat up in your head!!

Again, I never said that you called everyone who disagrees with you an asshole, I said you call them an asshole or other things, such as paranoid, I do seem to recall mentioning that, and some other stuff. But hey, if you want to ignore stuff just to make yourself feel better, by all means go ahead. Everyone needs some way to boost their self esteem, at least you have discovered something that works for you.

Yeah, zoom! Right over my head, sure. What "extreme position" of mine were you responding to? Cause I don't think you know what the fark you're talking about.