Drunk Drivers' Rights?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Why would it be wrong for the state to deprive someone of their life if there did not exist the natural right to life? 4th Amendment explicitly confirms that the State must respect the lives of their citizens.

Is Berzerker arguing that the state can arbitrarily kill whomever it wants?

[Ben Kenobi]

I still don't believe your bull**** story about checking the serial number that you just thought up

Does it suck when BK owns you?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

It's good you've admitted you were wrong. Poly would be a better place if people would just admit this.

I still don't believe your bull**** story about checking the serial number that you just thought up

[Ben Kenobi]

ＷＨＡＴ　ＤＯＥＳ　ＴＨＩＳ　ＨＡＶＥ　ＴＯ　ＤＯ　ＷＩＴＨ　ＡＮＹＴＨＩＮＧ？

Why would it be wrong for the state to deprive someone of their life if there did not exist the natural right to life? 4th Amendment explicitly confirms that the State must respect the lives of their citizens.

[Ben Kenobi]

yeah, sure, he checked the ****ing serial number on the snowblower and could prove it was his but didn't bother to contact the police or do anything to get it back.
Why do you just make **** up?

It's good you've admitted you were wrong. Poly would be a better place if people would just admit this.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

I believe this is an admission of wrongness. Why do people argue about things they were never there for to someone who was? Seriously.

lol
yeah, sure, he checked the ****ing serial number on the snowblower and could prove it was his but didn't bother to contact the police or do anything to get it back.
Why do you just make **** up?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

ＷＨＡＴ　ＤＯＥＳ　ＴＨＩＳ　ＨＡＶＥ　ＴＯ　ＤＯ　ＷＩＴＨ　ＡＮＹＴＨＩＮＧ？

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm you could have simply said "he checked the serial number" (if that actually happened, which I don't believe) instead of giving such an obnoxious answer

I believe this is an admission of wrongness. Why do people argue about things they were never there for to someone who was? Seriously.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

I believe they call them "serial numbers."

Hmm you could have simply said "he checked the serial number" (if that actually happened, which I don't believe) instead of giving such an obnoxious answer.

[Ben Kenobi]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're paying for the medical care

If I'm paying for it through medicare, yes I get a say.

He posted the loophole

What loophole? It's the law.

it aint up to Congress to define religion

If the law states that religion and religious expression is protected then religion must be defined in order to determine what is protected. This way they can avoid scams like the one you're trying to pull.

The only religions not protected by the 1st Amendment are ones that, to quote you, are fundamentally incompatible with religious freedom.

Indeed, as in the case of Sharia law.

Those rules exist because politicians didn't want to obey the Constitution

Again, this definition has been upheld by the courts as constitutional. Meaning your sorry marley loving pot smoking ass is outta luck.

You support jailing millions of people.

You gonna recompense me and my family for losses suffered because of pot dealers? Oh wait, you're the one arguing that I should just suffer and bear under it.

If Sharia Law is fundamentally incompatible with religious freedom then why would it be protected by an amendment

And here we go. "Libertarian Berz" Is arguing in favor of sharia law as constitutionally protected in America.

Wow. I hope you like being enslaved to the local imam.

Taliban Ben lecturing us about religious freedom.

Hey, I ain't the one arguing for the establishment of Sharia law in America. Taliban Berz has a better ring to it.

Congress cannot define religion, doing so respects an establishment of religion.

Again, it's done to prevent the scam you are trying to pull. Sucks for you, Berz.

By excluding religions from the 1st Amendment's protections Congress has made a law that establishes the religions meeting with its approval.

Yeah, congress is protecting folks from sorry ass scammers like yourself trying to shovel government paid pot down the throats of everyone.

Gosh, pot really does have a hold over you, Berz.

I dont care who he was murdering, he's a murderer and y'all call him saint.

Odd that, because it destroys your argument.

I cited a bunch of religions, you've been ignoring my sources after griping about not having sources.

You haven't yet cited a single reliable source. All you've got is Rasta and Rasta is pot using religion.

I didn't say that and you called him a prophet, not me.

You said he was a prophet and that I could find his teachings in his music. Odd that an atheist would abide by the 'prophet Marley'. Or maybe it's the pot talking?

I'm not taxing you for Medicare

That's not what my paystub says...

We're not debating food stamps,

DD is correct, and once again, you're wrong.

I didn't say pot wasn't really a food

You said you couldn't live off of it, but you could live off food. False analogy.

Thats not true, Congress has enumerated powers and it doesn't have an enumerated power

Actually it does have the enumerated power to do just this. I've shown you examples from the 1790s under Hamilton as Sec of Treasury.

No you didn't

**** YOU BERZ!

I'm done.

you referred me to the 4th Amendment.

GOD ****ING DAMMIT.

DO YOU EVEN READ ****!

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, how would he be able to identify his snowblower from someone else's if they're the same model from the same manufacturer? Did he write his name on it or something?

I believe they call them "serial numbers."

[Berzerker]

I did not say anything of the sort. I said, and I repeat, if I'm paying for medicare I have a say into what is covered and how it is covered. If there is no medicare then I don't get to have a say.

You're just bitter that I (correctly), called your statist ass out on this one.

I asked the following question:

You're paying for the medical care of obese people, does that give you the right to decide what we all eat too?

and here was your answer:

Damn straight it does.

Your statist ass thinks Congress should let you decide what everyone eats because you pay a tax. Project much?

Sava has already posted what the courts have said about this issue. I suggest you consult his post.

He posted the loophole the courts have punched in the 1st Amendment, it aint up to Congress to define religion - that establishes religion. The only religions not protected by the 1st Amendment are ones that, to quote you, are fundamentally incompatible with religious freedom.

Crafting a bull**** 'religion' to play marley and smoke weed everyday is why those rules exist. And again - there are limitations with Sharia law being one of those. But, I look forward to you dealing with Sharia law and seeing how well your religious freedom stacks up.

Those rules exist because politicians didn't want to obey the Constitution so they appointed political hacks to their courts who said its okay if they ignore the Constitution...and you're patting them on the back. As for sharia law, wtf?

I'm sorry, your hurt feelings aren't actionable.

Hurt feelings? You support jailing millions of people.

What congress is saying is that unlike the Church of England, there would not be a Church of the United States. It doesn't prevent Congress from accurately defining religion. Nor does it prevent congress from banning things like Sharia Law which are fundamentally incompatible with religious freedom.

If Sharia Law is fundamentally incompatible with religious freedom then why would it be protected by an amendment that protects religious freedom? Can we ban wine and crackers because Sharia Law can be banned? How does a ban on a religion that violates the religious freedom of other people justify a ban on religions that dont? The religious use of pot doesn't violate your religious freedom, you are violating the religious freedom of people who use pot. You have something in common with Muslim fanatics, you support banning religions you dont like too. Taliban Ben lecturing us about religious freedom.

Congress cannot define religion, doing so respects an establishment of religion. By excluding religions from the 1st Amendment's protections Congress has made a law that establishes the religions meeting with its approval.

One would think that an ardent exponent of atheism would express his abhorrence to Sharia Law, but I have seen precious little.

I didn't know we were debating Sharia Law, you just mentioned it (I mean, changed the subject again). And I'm not an atheist.

Perhaps you should reveal that he murdered Christians.

I dont care who he was murdering, he's a murderer and y'all call him saint.

You cited Rasta as your example of religious use of pot. You've got it backwards. Rasta is pot's use of religion.

I cited a bunch of religions, you've been ignoring my sources after griping about not having sources.

You did. "Play his music and you will find it".

I didn't say that and you called him a prophet, not me.

. My paystub says otherwise. Face it Berz, you're stuck. Taxation accompanied with representation is a fundamental core value of the American republic.

I'm not taxing you for Medicare

As Dinodoc pointed out I actually do with Food stamps.

We're not debating food stamps, you claimed the right to decide what everyone eats because you're paying a tax for Medicare. If Congress supplies me with food I still have the right to eat what I want, so you and DD are wrong.

You made a false analogy between Pot and food. And then claimed, "pot isn't really food", admitting it was a false analogy.

I didn't say pot wasn't really a food, I said I couldn't live off of it. I cant live off chocolate cake either but its still a food.

If there is no constitutional right to pot, the government can control its distribution through legislation.

Thats not true, Congress has enumerated powers and it doesn't have an enumerated power to decide what we eat. It can tax and it can regulate commerce with other nations, Indian tribes, and among the states. Nothing there about banning a plant in somebody's yard. And there is a constitutional right to use pot, its in the 1st and 9th Amendments.

Already did ****er.

No you didn't, you referred me to the 4th Amendment. Quote it... Where is this right to life? It aint there, you are confused again.

My previous source showed that they were regulating moonshine in the 1790s under Hamilton.

They weren't regulating it, they were taxing it. I said Congress has the power to tax. Where is your proof that Congress was heavily regulating the alcohol industry?

Actually, per the constitution they do. The courts have upheld the right of the state to ban alcohol.

Thats not true, they can ban the sale of alcohol under the commerce power. They cant ban non-commercial booze under that power.

By definition that's true.

I dont see an enumerated right to wine and crackers, your "god" is not protected by the Constitution.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Again, how would he be able to identify his snowblower from someone else's if they're the same model from the same manufacturer? Did he write his name on it or something?

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't care if he's dead. I just want to know why you assume the pot dealer couldn't have gone to the hardware store and bought a snowblower that looks just like your father's.

One you specifically asked, "did he have his name on his blower"? I assumed you were being facetious.

Do I believe it was possible for my father to identify his own snowblower? Yes. Do I believe that the person he identified as responsible stole his blower? Also yes. Again, this is a small neighborhood. You seem to assume that I don't have details that my father was unaware of at the time that would influence my assessment of the issue.