T1B

Show me where it says real property.
The question still stands, how do they legally dispose of MRAPs to local cops?

Moving Sale wrote:Show me where it says real property.

The article is devoted to the creation of new states and administration of US territories. That is real property.

The question still stands, how do they legally dispose of MRAPs to local cops?

10 U.S. Code § 2576

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Show me where it says real property.

The article is devoted to the creation of new states and administration of US territories. That is real property.

The question still stands, how do they legally dispose of MRAPs to local cops?

10 U.S. Code § 2576

It's says "other property" not "other real property" you fucking cum drinking dolt.
10 U.S. 2576 is not the constitution.

Moving Sale wrote: It's says "other property" not "other real property"

Territory and other Property means Federal lands within state boundaries not money, not furnishings and not equipment. This isn't even an arguable point.

Congress appropriates money for weapons. Congress can dispose of those weapons as they see fit. They saw fit to do so via 10 USC 2576.

You remain a shit lawyer.

And there we have it. They can dispose of guns, paperclips and land how they see fit, which means they can do the same with money. It would be stupid to say they can buy a pen and then dispose of it to a fifth grade kid in Miami but they can't give that kid's school the money for a pen.

As for Art4, it says property, which means property. You think the founders didn't know what real property is? If they meant real property they would have said it.

You remain a failure.

Any proof besides the words in the actual document. Yea who can believe THAT thing? Good grief.

do tell

And before YOU make yourself look as stupid as jsc and Ofailure...

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewc ... ext=wmborj

See pages 1252-55

Moving Sale wrote:do tell

You chose an abysmally stupid position and defended it poorly.

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewc ... ext=wmborj

See pages 1252-55

That's it? You take the less convincing side of a "minor academic skirmish" as the basis for your ridiculous assertion that Art. 4 grants Congress the authority to spend money on anything they want under the guise of "disposing of property"?



Shit for brains = Shit lawyer. You really do suck at this.

You don't believe what the constitution actually says. You can't cite a case saying I'm wrrong. Okay fine. Then we are back to where we started. Please show me the constitutional authority to sell a surplus paperclip owned by the national government. Good fucking grief if I'm so stupid you should be able to find it easy.

So again, where is the CA to sell a surplus paperclip? And I didn't just find an article, the article explains why YOU can't prove me wrong. Of course I knew that before I opened my pie hole. You didn't learn all this shit in law school?

Moving Sale wrote:Please show me the constitutional authority to sell a surplus paperclip owned by the national government.

Please cite an example of the national government actually selling a surplus paperclip and, no, MRAPs are not paperclips in case you were wondering.

Good grief you are grasping. Is it your assertion that the national government doesn't not own chattel that is sells from time to time?

Moving Sale wrote:Good grief you are grasping. Is it your assertion that the national government doesn't not own chattel that is sells from time to time?

Double negative much?

The constitutional basis for the transfer of military surplus to state and local law enforcement is found in A1S8.

First:

The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

One can make a reasonable argument that ensuring that law enforcement has the latest and greatest toys provides for the general Welfare. Personally, I do not agree with the practice. That is another discussion.

Selling paperclips does not provide for the general Welfare.

Second:

To exercise exclusive Legislation...over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Again, what part of the U.S. constitution gives the national government the right to sell chattle it owns or are you saying they can't?
And selling war machines to cops as part of the general welfare is a lot longer stretch than saying the word "property" means "property."

Again, what part of the U.S. constitution gives the national government the right to sell chattle it owns or are you saying they can't?

Government is not a business. They may purchase items to support their designated functions. Reselling those items is skating on very thin constitutional ice, IMO.

And selling war machines to cops as part of the general welfare is a lot longer stretch than saying the word "property" means "property."

Does law enforcement provide for the general welfare? It's a simple yes or no. I think we probably agree that selling war machines to cops is pretty bad idea. That doesn't mean that there isn't a legitimate argument that can be made for it.

Of course the obvious counter to war machines in the hands of local law enforcement is the proper interpretation of the 2nd amendment which clearly envisions war machines in the hands of private citizens. Checks and balances.

So the national government can't dispose of chattel. That's an awesome take. :?

From the link...

Paul Detterman, national director of The Fellowship Community, a group of conservatives who have stayed in the church, said: “Our objection to the passage of the marriage amendment is in no way, shape or form anti-gay. It is in no way intended as anything but concern that the church is capitulating to the culture and is misrepresenting the message of Scripture.”


From the Bible...

Genesis 2:22-24
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Matthew 19:4-6 (Jesus speaking)
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.



God created marriage, not man.
Jesus verified what God gave us as marriage.

You can't read the Bible and conclude that two homosexuals are a marriage.
If you make that conclusion, you have an agenda or you are doing what Paul Detterman said -- you are capitulating to culture and not representing the Scripture.

Jesus just told me that he's a Jew (we talk and roll like that since we have the same blood type and shit)... and wished that the goyim would get off his back

Honestly, I had no idea that he was Jewish... along with everyone else in the bible.


Since all the gentiles are sent to hell by his dad... for pretending to be born again and disrespecting his people.


Jesus was throwing back yesterday and wasn't making too much sense... but, like all of us... he found St. Pat's Day was as good reason to get blasted as any.



Rack my bro !

Sudden Sam wrote:I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of same-sex Renfaire marriages.

How much ?


How many chickens you got, boy ?

Just got off the phone with Jesus... and we couldn't stop laughing !

He told me that it was funny as shit that midwesterners and southerners had to air-condition their air.


We both had a good laugh.

Sam wrote:I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of same-sex Renfaire marriages.

I'd be willing to bet m2 is the wife in his marriage.

poptart wrote:

Sam wrote:I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of same-sex Renfaire marriages.

I'd be willing to bet m2 is the wife in his marriage.

Jesus just told me that gentiles aren't very funny and don't make good comics.


He was right again.

Jesus just told me that gentiles aren't very funny and don't make good comics.

Jsc810 wrote:Same Bible. Different conclusions.

Matthew 22:37-40

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

That's it, pop. Nothing else. It is that simple.

And when you interpret something that conflicts with those two rules, then you are wrong.

The dominoes will continue to fall at an ever-increasing rate. Think about it. Pray about it. Focus on just those two rules. Adjust your life and your thinking accordingly.

He was right again.

Jsc,

Clearly you can't argue that Jesus is ok with murder. But if your neighbor is a murderer then you are still directed to love him but not the action of murder. Love the person not the action or sin if you prefer.

To then extend that it would make sense to say love the individuals seeking a gay marriage but not the act of them getting married.



As for churches and humans interpreting it one way or another, keep this in mind. Churches are a group of people led by humans. These leaders keep their jobs by having as many people active in the church as possible. So it isn't all that surprising to see some change their interpretation based on changing feelings towards an issue. That doesn't mean it is right or correct.

Jsc wrote:7 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

That's it, pop. Nothing else. It is that simple.

And when you interpret something that conflicts with those two rules, then you are wrong.

It's rather difficult to imagine that two homosexuals who thumb their nose at the marriage God created, and then proceed to create and celebrate their own version of marriage, which includes sodomy on a nightly basis, are loving God with all their heart, soul and mind.

Do we need a Scripture refresher to see again what God thinks of homosexuality?


This is one of the dumbest arguments ever.

So to recap- the property clause covers chattel.

Sudden Sam wrote:

poptart wrote: which includes sodomy on a nightly basis

I would imagine it tails off after a decade or so of marriage.

Did any of yours actually last that long?

poptart wrote:Genesis 2:22-24
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

One has to make certain assumptions when trying to reconcile passages that are ludicrous on the surface (using a man's rib as the foundation from which to build a woman?) but are held as absolute truth by some, with at least some science, to interpret what is really being said here. If we assume God created Man, we must also assume God created the DNA contained in the first man's genes. The rib God removed from Adam contained the same DNA as every other cell in Adam's body, and since there's been no recorded evidence I'm aware of to indicate the possibility of a human having DNA that differs from one body part to another, it must be concluded that Eve was the only identical twin of different gender ever - she had to have the same DNA as Adam, right?

I'm sure the Bible says something somewhere about incest - and I'd think fucking your identical twin sister would qualify - but this goes even further. They weren't twins in the conventional sense in that they didn't come from the same mother (since neither she nor Adam had mothers - Western religions are funny like that about completely eliminating the life-giving goddess from creation stories), and were never the same embryo. Eve was more of a female clone of Adam than a sister (in addition, of course, to the whole wife thingy). They are, genetically, identical. Right?

So when this: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" is applied to Adam & Eve, isn't God really just saying, "Go fuck yourself"?

A person with more than one kind (set?) of DNA is called a chimera.

Left Seater wrote:As for churches and humans interpreting it one way or another, keep this in mind. Churches are a group of people led by humans. These leaders keep their jobs by having as many people active in the church as possible. So it isn't all that surprising to see some change their interpretation based on changing feelings towards an issue. That doesn't mean it is right or correct.

All the more reason that the Establishment Clauses was a stroke of genius. Religion should play no part in the governing the citizens of this nation.

Diego in Seattle wrote: All the more reason that the Establishment Clauses was a stroke of genius. Religion should play no part in the governing the citizens of this nation.

That wasn't the purpose of the Establishment Clause, fuckwit. The Establishment Clause was placed in the Constitution to prevent the national government from interfering with the officially established religions which existed in the states at the time. Nine of the original thirteen colonies had established religions of one denomination or another. Even in the other five, religion had a central role in civic and social life in colonial America.

mvscal wrote:The Establishment Clause was placed in the Constitution to prevent the national government from interfering with the officially established religions which existed in the states at the time. Nine of the original thirteen colonies had established religions of one denomination or another. Even in the other five, religion had a central role in civic and social life in colonial America.

For example, by law, colonial Virginians had to be members of the Anglican church. Religious freedom was considered a privilege, not a right, and had to be applied for. Religious "dissenters" (non-Anglicans) were still taxed by the Anglican church as well as by the church in which they worshiped.

Moving Sale wrote:A person with more than one kind (set?) of DNA is called a chimera.

A person with more than one kind (set?) of DNA in their hot tub is called a.....

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: All the more reason that the Establishment Clauses was a stroke of genius. Religion should play no part in the governing the citizens of this nation.

That wasn't the purpose of the Establishment Clause, fuckwit. The Establishment Clause was placed in the Constitution to prevent the national government from interfering with the officially established religions which existed in the states at the time. Nine of the original thirteen colonies had established religions of one denomination or another. Even in the other five, religion had a central role in civic and social life in colonial America.

He said nation not state you cock licking failure.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Religion should play no part in the governing the citizens of this nation.

That boat sailed centuries ago.

How about we turn around your statement to read Government should play no part in the religion of the citizen of this nation.

That would mean the IRS would not need to deal with marriage. Period.

LS,
Should religious money and property be taxed?

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: All the more reason that the Establishment Clauses was a stroke of genius. Religion should play no part in the governing the citizens of this nation.

That wasn't the purpose of the Establishment Clause, fuckwit. The Establishment Clause was placed in the Constitution to prevent the national government from interfering with the officially established religions which existed in the states at the time. Nine of the original thirteen colonies had established religions of one denomination or another. Even in the other five, religion had a central role in civic and social life in colonial America.

He said nation not state you cock licking failure.

Go fuck yourself, half-pint.

Nice white flag loser.

His intent was clear. Your hair-splitting ankle biting is irrelevant.

Moving Sale wrote:LS,
Should religious money and property be taxed?

No and yes. Donations should not be taxed nor should they be tax deductible. Individuals or companies already paid tax on that money they are donating. This should be the same for a church, Planned Parenthood, the local art museum, the NRA, habitat for humanity, United Way, Girl Scouts, etc.

As for property taxes, yes a church should pay them as well as all other taxes*. Then again, all the entities listed above should also pay property taxes and all other taxes* as well.




* Capital gains taxes should go away for everyone. All capital gains are taxable, while all losses are not. In the words of a friend from Asia, "This be bull shit!"