Why gay marriage is wrong!

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! The projections common to your straw reasoning, does not a conflict on the part of another... make.

I'm sure that made sense in your head, at least.

where_r_my_keys said that, not me.

Having trouble figuring out how to work the quote thingy?

See: Above.

 

[Skylar]

Oh I am... Although, I am for the South invading the North... and returning the nation to its constitutional moorings, returning the negro to his native land and beatin' the man out of their women... after a proper lashin' of course.

OH!~ Wait... that's the loomin' civil war.

Yeah, none of that is happening. And 'returning the negro to his native land'? All the black folks I know were born here. Making the US their 'native land'.

If people should go back to where their *ancestors* came from, then everyone save Lakota and hers will likely have to take the slow boat to elsewhere.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and since you claimed that there's nothing more American that what the Confederacy fought for, and the Confederacy fought for slavery, are you claiming that there's nothing more American than slavery?

I've hit him on this inconsistency in his logic. He just flip flops haha.

Poor, insignificant Dixiecrat has no idea what he really believes. Push him on the subject and he pusses out.

You morons don't even need me to participate in this discussion since you simply ignore whatever I post.

Did I misquote you? If no, then how am I ignoring what you're posting?

I'm done arguing with morons like you.

Did I quote you too well? Or was it all the facts like the Confederacy offering to buy the federal holdings you claimed they already owned that sent you running?

 

[Flopper]

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion?

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Not so.
Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836. Construction was supervised by the US Corp of Engineers and paid for by the US government.

Who Owned Fort Sumter Student of the American Civil War

 

[bodecea]

Hmmmm, wrong. Where does the Constitution say that ANY ALTERATION of the US state count requires a vote? It only discusses admitting states to the Union, not states leaving the Union.

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion? Don't you belong to the gang that whines about the invasion of Iraq because it was supposedly unprovoked? You just threw all your claims of moral superiority in

...You're trolling, right? You don't honestly side with the Confederacy over the United States of America, do you?

You are the perfect storm of the STUPID/WEAK/COWARDLY trinity.

Yes, I do side with the Confederacy - the innocent party.

Only bootlicking scumbags admire Lincoln the mass murdering tyrant.

It's interesting how the parties switched overtime. Typical small government (small minded) conservative Republican supporters like Bripat are the modern 'Dixiecrat', and the progressive, fedgov Democratic supporters are the true ideological heirs of Lincoln and TRoosevelt.

Lincoln and Teddy were both a couple of goose-stepping tyrants, so you are correct in postulating that Democrats are their intellectual heirs.

Just goes to show you: If the south is on your side, you've chosen poorly.

If the South is on my side? It's amazing how many thousands of ways turds like you can find to deliberately misconstrue my position.

Flip flopping again??

The south and you are on the same side. You said as much yourself earlier:

"Yes, I do side with the Confederacy" - Bripat

Why do you keep trying to hide from your views like some kind of pansy?

STAND BY YOUR PRINCIPLES.

Lord knows I do!
Lincoln and TR are two of my favorite presidents, and I'd defend them in any debate.
Seems like all I have to do is look at you funny and you start changing sides!

Nut up, Bripat

You are such. A. Coward.
I'd love to debate you if I had any idea what a pansy like you truly believed. Just like a Dixiecrat, you have no idea what you even stand for.

He's pretty terrified of gays too....when talking about Indiana businesses just putting a "No gays" sign, it terrified him.

 

[Skylar]

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion?

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Not so.
Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to United States government in 1836. Construction was supervised by the US Corp of Engineers and paid for by the US government.

Who Owned Fort Sumter Student of the American Civil War

Yup. And the Confederacy even offered to buy it from the US government. Which just obliterates any revisionist nonsense that it already belonged to the Confederacy.

 

[bodecea]

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion?

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Ft. Sumter was a federal installation. Apparently, not only do you openly support a country that fought for slavery, but you also openly support a "country" that attacked the U.S. Military.

Sadly, for your feelings, the US Federal Government was not relevant to South Carolina, at the time; which was part and parcel of the Confederate States of America.

If you had any kinship with the history of the Confederate States and its sibling nation; The United States, you'd know that South Carolina was the FIRST of the States to leave the Union.


But, in fairness... mouthy British Socialists aren't expected to know much of anything, except their needs and how bad they NEED to have those needs met, by any means.

It's pointless to argue with these vegetables. They behave as if they haven't read a thing you have posted. I am thinking about putting them all on ignore.

Well, that would be the coward's way out....so it suits you.

 

[Skylar]

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Ft. Sumter was a federal installation. Apparently, not only do you openly support a country that fought for slavery, but you also openly support a "country" that attacked the U.S. Military.

Sadly, for your feelings, the US Federal Government was not relevant to South Carolina, at the time; which was part and parcel of the Confederate States of America.

If you had any kinship with the history of the Confederate States and its sibling nation; The United States, you'd know that South Carolina was the FIRST of the States to leave the Union.


But, in fairness... mouthy British Socialists aren't expected to know much of anything, except their needs and how bad they NEED to have those needs met, by any means.

It's pointless to argue with these vegetables. They behave as if they haven't read a thing you have posted. I am thinking about putting them all on ignore.

Well, that would be the coward's way out....so it suits you.

Welcome to the right wing echo chamber. They don't like to hear anything but what they already believe.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not so.

So...

Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836.

Yeaaah... and seceding probably didn't change that. Most folks who divorce live up to all the old promises. Happens everyday, somewhere.

LOL! (The Reader should recognize the above reasoning as the intellectual perversion which often presents as sexual deviancy... and therein realize that sexual deviancy is only a symptom of a much more destructive consequence of the overriding mental disorder.)

 

[bodecea]

Not so.

So...

Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836.

Yeaaah... and seceding probably didn't change that. Most folks who divorce live up to all the old promises. Happens everyday, somewhere.

LOL! (The Reader should recognize the above reasoning as the intellectual perversion which often presents as sexual deviancy... and therein realize that sexual deviancy is only a symptom of a much more destructive consequence of the overriding mental disorder.)

What's marriage again?

 

[Skylar]

Not so.

So...

Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836.

Yeaaah... and seceding probably didn't change that. Most folks who divorce live up to all the old promises. Happens everyday, somewhere.

You can't 'secede' land that isn't yours. One would think this was obvious. But clearly the concept went right over your head.

 

[bripat9643]

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion?

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Not so.
Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836. Construction was supervised by the US Corp of Engineers and paid for by the US government.

Who Owned Fort Sumter Student of the American Civil War

It was the property of the United States, not the territory. If I own land in Jamaica, I can't station troops there and point guns at Jamaican troops when they come to evict me. They have every right to blow me to kingdom come.

You morons don't seem to understand the difference between property and territory. That's just one example of how it's pointless to argue with numkulls who are incapable of committing logic.

 

[Skylar]

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion?

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Not so.
Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836. Construction was supervised by the US Corp of Engineers and paid for by the US government.

Who Owned Fort Sumter Student of the American Civil War

It was the property of the United States, not the territory. If I own land in Jamaica, I can't station troops there and point guns at Jamaican troops when they come to evict me. They have every right to blow me to kingdom come.

The land you own in Jamaca isn't a military base, is it?

Think.

 

[bripat9643]

Not so.

So...

Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836.

Yeaaah... and seceding probably didn't change that. Most folks who divorce live up to all the old promises. Happens everyday, somewhere.

You can't 'secede' land that isn't yours. One would think this was obvious. But clearly the concept went right over your head.

ROFL! The state of South Carolina owned almost none of the land within its borders.

Get a clue about the difference between territory and property. Until you do I will just write you off as a hopeless numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion?

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Not so.
Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836. Construction was supervised by the US Corp of Engineers and paid for by the US government.

Who Owned Fort Sumter Student of the American Civil War

It was the property of the United States, not the territory. If I own land in Jamaica, I can't station troops there and point guns at Jamaican troops when they come to evict me. They have every right to blow me to kingdom come.

The land you own in Jamaca isn't a military base, is it?

Think.

You're an imbecile. Think.

 

[bripat9643]

Not so.

So...

Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836.

Yeaaah... and seceding probably didn't change that. Most folks who divorce live up to all the old promises. Happens everyday, somewhere.

You can't 'secede' land that isn't yours. One would think this was obvious. But clearly the concept went right over your head.

The stupidness is sucking in all the intelligence within 50 miles.

 

[Skylar]

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Not so.
Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836. Construction was supervised by the US Corp of Engineers and paid for by the US government.

Who Owned Fort Sumter Student of the American Civil War

It was the property of the United States, not the territory. If I own land in Jamaica, I can't station troops there and point guns at Jamaican troops when they come to evict me. They have every right to blow me to kingdom come.

The land you own in Jamaca isn't a military base, is it?

Think.

You're an imbecile. Think.

South Carolina ceded the land to the United States government. And South Carolina knew this. Which is why they offered to buy the land from the US after seceding. The land didn't belong to South Carolina. Thus, how could these 'secede' with it?

It would be like selling a deed to someone else's house.

Think.

 

[bripat9643]

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Ft. Sumter was a federal installation. Apparently, not only do you openly support a country that fought for slavery, but you also openly support a "country" that attacked the U.S. Military.

Sadly, for your feelings, the US Federal Government was not relevant to South Carolina, at the time; which was part and parcel of the Confederate States of America.

If you had any kinship with the history of the Confederate States and its sibling nation; The United States, you'd know that South Carolina was the FIRST of the States to leave the Union.


But, in fairness... mouthy British Socialists aren't expected to know much of anything, except their needs and how bad they NEED to have those needs met, by any means.

It's pointless to argue with these vegetables. They behave as if they haven't read a thing you have posted. I am thinking about putting them all on ignore.

Well, that would be the coward's way out....so it suits you.

Welcome to the right wing echo chamber. They don't like to hear anything but what they already believe.

 

[bripat9643]

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion?

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Not so.
Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836. Construction was supervised by the US Corp of Engineers and paid for by the US government.

Who Owned Fort Sumter Student of the American Civil War

It was the property of the United States, not the territory. If I own land in Jamaica, I can't station troops there and point guns at Jamaican troops when they come to evict me. They have every right to blow me to kingdom come.

The land you own in Jamaca isn't a military base, is it?

Think.

alright, I'll bite (even though this premise is moronic). What difference does it make what I use the land for?

 

[Skylar]

Not so.

So...

Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836.

Yeaaah... and seceding probably didn't change that. Most folks who divorce live up to all the old promises. Happens everyday, somewhere.

You can't 'secede' land that isn't yours. One would think this was obvious. But clearly the concept went right over your head.

The stupidness is sucking in all the intelligence within 50 miles.

Sticks and stones, silly. You can't refute my point. Which is why your posts have degenrated into insults.

You can't secede land that isn't yours anymore than you can will the deed to someone else's house to your kids.

This is basic, basic shit here. And it completely confounds you.