Why gay marriage is wrong!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not sure that I know what happened to this thread, mainly, I guess, because I put Bipart on ignore months ago, because he is a whinny kid who lives in his mother's basement and derails threads with his trolling. Come on, guys, consider who you are arguing with here!

You put me on ignore because you're coward and a moron who regularly gets shot out of the saddle.

No, many put you on ignore because you are in fact ignorant – as well as being hateful and consistently wrong.

 

[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

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.

But South Carolina is not Jamaica. When South Carolina seeded from the Union and joined the Confederacy, the United States did not recognize the action nor did any other nation on earth. The attack on Ft. Sumter was an attack on the United States by a band of rebels. Your argument doesn't stand up.

 

[Flopper]

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?

You're literally arguing that the US government didn't have the authority to post troops at a US military base because you can't post troops at land you own in Jamaica.

This is really where you're gonna hang your hat?

If Jamaica tells you to get your troops the hell out, then you have no right to station them there. That's true of every overseas military base. Many nations have told the U.S. to send its troops packing. We had no choice but to comply. Unless you want to violate internation law and start a war, that is, which is exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Jamaica is a nation and recognized as such throughout the world. South Carolina's secession and the Confederacy was never recognized by anyone except the rebels. Your argument is based on the belief that South Carolina had the right to seeded from Union. That issue was settled rather decisively with outcome of the war.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Did you know that screwing another man in the butt can cause the lining to tar. This open tar make it really easy for diseases to get in.

Isn't very wise.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Did you know that screwing another man in the butt can cause the lining to tar. This open tar make it really easy for diseases to get in.

Isn't very wise.

Well, I'm glad that only occurs while screwing a man in the butt. That means that my wife and I are safe....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Did you know that screwing another man in the butt can cause the lining to tar. This open tar make it really easy for diseases to get in.

Isn't very wise.

Did you know that this legally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case before the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

You're literally arguing that the US government didn't have the authority to post troops at a US military base because you can't post troops at land you own in Jamaica.

This is really where you're gonna hang your hat?

If Jamaica tells you to get your troops the hell out, then you have no right to station them there. That's true of every overseas military base. Many nations have told the U.S. to send its troops packing. We had no choice but to comply. Unless you want to violate internation law and start a war, that is, which is exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Jamaica is a nation and recognized as such throughout the world. South Carolina's secession and the Confederacy was never recognized by anyone except the rebels. Your argument is based on the belief that South Carolina had the right to seeded from Union. That issue was settled rather decisively with outcome of the war.

And the issue was settled rather decisively by the Supreme Court as well – that 'secession' was un-Constitutional absent the consent of all the other states, consequently no state 'left the Union,' and that the 'confederacy' in fact never existed.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure that I know what happened to this thread, mainly, I guess, because I put Bipart on ignore months ago, because he is a whinny kid who lives in his mother's basement and derails threads with his trolling. Come on, guys, consider who you are arguing with here!

You put me on ignore because you're coward and a moron who regularly gets shot out of the saddle.

No, many put you on ignore because you are in fact ignorant – as well as being hateful and consistently wrong.

That's hilarious coming from someone who is as wrong as often as you.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You're literally arguing that the US government didn't have the authority to post troops at a US military base because you can't post troops at land you own in Jamaica.

This is really where you're gonna hang your hat?

If Jamaica tells you to get your troops the hell out, then you have no right to station them there. That's true of every overseas military base. Many nations have told the U.S. to send its troops packing. We had no choice but to comply. Unless you want to violate internation law and start a war, that is, which is exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Jamaica is a nation and recognized as such throughout the world. South Carolina's secession and the Confederacy was never recognized by anyone except the rebels. Your argument is based on the belief that South Carolina had the right to seeded from Union. That issue was settled rather decisively with outcome of the war.

And the issue was settled rather decisively by the Supreme Court as well – that 'secession' was un-Constitutional absent the consent of all the other states, consequently no state 'left the Union,' and that the 'confederacy' in fact never existed.

Yeah, right. It was "settled" by a gang of Lincoln appointed hacks.

All you've done here is demonstrated your utter contempt for the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You're literally arguing that the US government didn't have the authority to post troops at a US military base because you can't post troops at land you own in Jamaica.

This is really where you're gonna hang your hat?

If Jamaica tells you to get your troops the hell out, then you have no right to station them there. That's true of every overseas military base. Many nations have told the U.S. to send its troops packing. We had no choice but to comply. Unless you want to violate internation law and start a war, that is, which is exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Jamaica is a nation and recognized as such throughout the world. South Carolina's secession and the Confederacy was never recognized by anyone except the rebels. Your argument is based on the belief that South Carolina had the right to seeded from Union. That issue was settled rather decisively with outcome of the war.

So winning makes you right and losing makes you wrong? Is that really the moral code of liberalism? By God, I believe it is!

What utter hypocrisy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When South Carolina seeded from the Union and joined the Confederacy, ... [sic]

Uh... South Carolina was the Confederacy when it seceded from the Union. It didn't 'join' anything.

And FWIW: that the US did not recognize the Confederacy is irrelevant.

Much as your refusal to recognize the laws of nature which govern human behavior, neither alters the existence of those laws, nor the benefits of adherence, or the consequences of failing to do such.

 

[Redfish]

Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. End of story.

 

[kaz]

And they've been going to school, going to college, graduating, getting a job, finding a partner, adopting children, paying taxes, voting, and just plain living their lives just as you have.

Except you don't have to do it in secret for fear of not getting a job or losing a job or being ostracized by a society and marketplace

Deflection. This is about gay marriage, giving them validation and government perks. It's not about any of these things

 

[Vandalshandle]

And they've been going to school, going to college, graduating, getting a job, finding a partner, adopting children, paying taxes, voting, and just plain living their lives just as you have.

Except you don't have to do it in secret for fear of not getting a job or losing a job or being ostracized by a society and marketplace

Deflection. This is about gay marriage, giving them validation and government perks. It's not about any of these things

I guess that you have a point. This is about your efforts to deny the same government perks to other law abiding citizens that you enjoy.

 

[Skylar]

Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. End of story.

The thousands of gay couples getting married and writing their own story says otherwise.

But hey, enjoy your view of the Pyramids.

 

[Skylar]

I can't believe there's still an argument over whether the Confederacy started the war or not...

History isn't based on opinion, it's based on fact. Simple as that.

Bripat, Keys, you're both wrong here if you think the Confederacy had any right to US property. The fact that they tried to buy it shows us that even in THEIR warped minds, they realized it wasn't theirs. What is so hard to understand?

Dixiecrats bewilder me..

That's assuming that the person you're talking to gives a fiddler's fuck about facts. BritPat is one of those folks that firmly believes that the US constitutions, US law, and even history means whatever HE believes it means.

Opinion being accepted as fact is the bread and butter of the right wing echo chamber.

Listen to the moron who doesn't even understand or care about the distinction between property and territory.

Says the poor, hapless soul who amusingly assumes that typing 'property' somehow changes history and the status of federal holdings.

Remember, Brit.....you haven't factually established jack shit. You've simply offered us your opinion. Citing yourself. And your source is inadequate to carry your argument.

 

[kaz]

And they've been going to school, going to college, graduating, getting a job, finding a partner, adopting children, paying taxes, voting, and just plain living their lives just as you have.

Except you don't have to do it in secret for fear of not getting a job or losing a job or being ostracized by a society and marketplace

Deflection. This is about gay marriage, giving them validation and government perks. It's not about any of these things

I guess that you have a point. This is about your efforts to deny the same government perks to other law abiding citizens that you enjoy.

I oppose all government marriage, Sparky, try to keep up.

And that's still defelection either way. it has nothing to do with the points in the Mad Hatters post that I quoted

 

[bripat9643]

I can't believe there's still an argument over whether the Confederacy started the war or not...

History isn't based on opinion, it's based on fact. Simple as that.

Bripat, Keys, you're both wrong here if you think the Confederacy had any right to US property. The fact that they tried to buy it shows us that even in THEIR warped minds, they realized it wasn't theirs. What is so hard to understand?

Dixiecrats bewilder me..

That's assuming that the person you're talking to gives a fiddler's fuck about facts. BritPat is one of those folks that firmly believes that the US constitutions, US law, and even history means whatever HE believes it means.

Opinion being accepted as fact is the bread and butter of the right wing echo chamber.

Listen to the moron who doesn't even understand or care about the distinction between property and territory.

Says the poor, hapless soul who amusingly assumes that typing 'property' somehow changes history and the status of federal holdings.

Of course it makes a difference, moron. Do you imagine that buying a piece of property in Mexico or Canada would give the federal the right to station troops there and refuse to remove them if the other government requested it? Only someone as stupid and utterly dishonest as you would claim it did.

Also, I see now you're calling them "holdings." I imagine the motive here is the same as the motive for changing the term "global warming" to "climate change:" so you can confuse the issue.

Remember, Brit.....you haven't factually established jack shit. You've simply offered us your opinion. Citing yourself. And your source is inadequate to carry your argument.

I've established that you're a moron who tries to pretend there is no legal difference between property and territory.

 

[Skylar]

I can't believe there's still an argument over whether the Confederacy started the war or not...

History isn't based on opinion, it's based on fact. Simple as that.

Bripat, Keys, you're both wrong here if you think the Confederacy had any right to US property. The fact that they tried to buy it shows us that even in THEIR warped minds, they realized it wasn't theirs. What is so hard to understand?

Dixiecrats bewilder me..

That's assuming that the person you're talking to gives a fiddler's fuck about facts. BritPat is one of those folks that firmly believes that the US constitutions, US law, and even history means whatever HE believes it means.

Opinion being accepted as fact is the bread and butter of the right wing echo chamber.

Listen to the moron who doesn't even understand or care about the distinction between property and territory.

Says the poor, hapless soul who amusingly assumes that typing 'property' somehow changes history and the status of federal holdings.

Of course it makes a difference, moron.

You typing the word 'property' magically changes the status of federal holdings?

Says who? If you haven't figured this out yet, you typing an accusation doesn't actually mean that laws, legal definitions, or history magically changes to match.

If you believe that US bases aren't US holdings.....then show us. Don't tell us. And so far, the only thing you've shown is your personal opinion. Which factually establishes exactly jack shit.

Try again.

 

[Skylar]

I've established that you're a moron who tries to pretend there is no legal difference between property and territory.

I'm the one who doesn't accept your claim that the US has no authority to keep troops in its own military bases. You've made the claim, but have never been able to back it up.

Show us in law where the US had no authority to keep troops in Ft. Sumter after South Carolina 'seceeded'. So far the only source you've cited is you.

And you're nobody.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what international law Lincoln violated. Remember, Brit....you typing a claim is meaningless. You're gonna have to back it up.