Why gay marriage is wrong!

[bripat9643]

Bripat. Shut the fuck up. Youre clueless.

The end.

Your post is up to your usual standards.

 

[G.T.]

Bripat. Shut the fuck up. Youre clueless.

The end.

Your post is up to your usual standards.

Your avatar is your usual standard.

Gay marriage is Americas future. Thats 100% certainty.

Get mad.

 

[bodecea]

Bripat. Shut the fuck up. Youre clueless.

The end.

Actually, I prefer he keep posting. Then we get little gems like this:

Civil rights are fictions invented by politicians. There is no right to force someone to serve you.

 

[bripat9643]

They fired on Union trespassers, something they had every right to do.

Lincoln started the war.

LOL....now you are reduced to stomping your feet.

You are supporting states that rebelled from the United States in order to protect their legal right to own slaves.

And you are also a homophobic bigot.

Not a mere coincidence.

They seceded - something they have every right to do. Their reasons are immaterial. The bottom line is that Lincoln made war on fellow Americans and slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands.

The right to secede is throughly debatable. As the constitution has no provisions for secession. With any alteration of US State count requiring a majority vote of existing states. You disagree. Why should I care?

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.

And even following your assumption, the attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Just as the US military invaded Mexico and conquered huge swaths, so too could the US invade and conquer the 'confederacy'.

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.

Rebellion or invasion, either is as legit as the other.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat. Shut the fuck up. Youre clueless.

The end.

Actually, I prefer he keep posting. Then we get little gems like this:

Civil rights are fictions invented by politicians. There is no right to force someone to serve you.

That must be your conception of wit.

 

[G.T.]

LOL....now you are reduced to stomping your feet.

You are supporting states that rebelled from the United States in order to protect their legal right to own slaves.

And you are also a homophobic bigot.

Not a mere coincidence.

They seceded - something they have every right to do. Their reasons are immaterial. The bottom line is that Lincoln made war on fellow Americans and slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands.

The right to secede is throughly debatable. As the constitution has no provisions for secession. With any alteration of US State count requiring a majority vote of existing states. You disagree. Why should I care?

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.

And even following your assumption, the attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Just as the US military invaded Mexico and conquered huge swaths, so too could the US invade and conquer the 'confederacy'.

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.

Rebellion or invasion, either is as legit as the other.

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.

The civil war had a big fucking loser.

Shit. Theyre stil fucking whining, just look at ya

 

[bripat9643]

They seceded - something they have every right to do. Their reasons are immaterial. The bottom line is that Lincoln made war on fellow Americans and slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands.

The right to secede is throughly debatable. As the constitution has no provisions for secession. With any alteration of US State count requiring a majority vote of existing states. You disagree. Why should I care?

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.

And even following your assumption, the attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Just as the US military invaded Mexico and conquered huge swaths, so too could the US invade and conquer the 'confederacy'.

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.

Rebellion or invasion, either is as legit as the other.

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.

The civil war had a big fucking loser.

Shit. Theyre stil fucking whining, just look at ya

Was there some kind of point to your post?

 

[G.T.]

The right to secede is throughly debatable. As the constitution has no provisions for secession. With any alteration of US State count requiring a majority vote of existing states. You disagree. Why should I care?

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.

And even following your assumption, the attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Just as the US military invaded Mexico and conquered huge swaths, so too could the US invade and conquer the 'confederacy'.

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.

Rebellion or invasion, either is as legit as the other.

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.

The civil war had a big fucking loser.

Shit. Theyre stil fucking whining, just look at ya

Was there some kind of point to your post?

Nah, thats just your hood.

 

[-S-]

LOL....now you are reduced to stomping your feet.

You are supporting states that rebelled from the United States in order to protect their legal right to own slaves.

And you are also a homophobic bigot.

Not a mere coincidence.

They seceded - something they have every right to do. Their reasons are immaterial. The bottom line is that Lincoln made war on fellow Americans and slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands.

The right to secede is throughly debatable. As the constitution has no provisions for secession. With any alteration of US State count requiring a majority vote of existing states. You disagree. Why should I care?

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.

And even following your assumption, the attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Just as the US military invaded Mexico and conquered huge swaths, so too could the US invade and conquer the 'confederacy'.

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.

Rebellion or invasion, either is as legit as the other.

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.


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

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The civil war had a big fucking loser.

Shit. Theyre stil fucking whining, just look at ya

Was there some kind of point to your post?

Nah, thats just your hood.

When it comes to vicious personal attacks, you're the champ.

 

[G.T.]

...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.

The civil war had a big fucking loser.

Shit. Theyre stil fucking whining, just look at ya

Was there some kind of point to your post?

Nah, thats just your hood.

When it comes to vicious personal attacks, you're the champ.

Im a beast against immoral bigots. Got that right.

Gay marriage is the future.
Slaves are the past.

The south will rise again. If i vacation there, cuz ill be fuckin.

 

[bodecea]

LOL....now you are reduced to stomping your feet.

You are supporting states that rebelled from the United States in order to protect their legal right to own slaves.

And you are also a homophobic bigot.

Not a mere coincidence.

They seceded - something they have every right to do. Their reasons are immaterial. The bottom line is that Lincoln made war on fellow Americans and slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands.

The right to secede is throughly debatable. As the constitution has no provisions for secession. With any alteration of US State count requiring a majority vote of existing states. You disagree. Why should I care?

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.

And even following your assumption, the attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Just as the US military invaded Mexico and conquered huge swaths, so too could the US invade and conquer the 'confederacy'.

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.

Rebellion or invasion, either is as legit as the other.

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.

See? Lovely gems like that one.

 

[bripat9643]

They seceded - something they have every right to do. Their reasons are immaterial. The bottom line is that Lincoln made war on fellow Americans and slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands.

The right to secede is throughly debatable. As the constitution has no provisions for secession. With any alteration of US State count requiring a majority vote of existing states. You disagree. Why should I care?

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.

And even following your assumption, the attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Just as the US military invaded Mexico and conquered huge swaths, so too could the US invade and conquer the 'confederacy'.

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.

Rebellion or invasion, either is as legit as the other.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Only bootlicking scumbags admire Lincoln the mass murdering tyrant.

The civil war had a big fucking loser.

Shit. Theyre stil fucking whining, just look at ya

Was there some kind of point to your post?

Nah, thats just your hood.

When it comes to vicious personal attacks, you're the champ.

Im a beast against immoral bigots. Got that right.

Gay marriage is the future.
Slaves are the past.

The south will rise again. If i vacation there, cuz ill be fuckin.

You're a beast against yourself?

Don't you claim to be a conservative Republican? You should just go ahead an register as a Democrat and all the cognitive dissonance will end.

 

[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'.

 

[G.T.]

The civil war had a big fucking loser.

Shit. Theyre stil fucking whining, just look at ya

Was there some kind of point to your post?

Nah, thats just your hood.

When it comes to vicious personal attacks, you're the champ.

Im a beast against immoral bigots. Got that right.

Gay marriage is the future.
Slaves are the past.

The south will rise again. If i vacation there, cuz ill be fuckin.

You're a beast against yourself?

Don't you claim to be a conservative Republican? You should just go ahead an register as a Democrat and all the cognitive dissonance will end.

No, ive neva eva eva eva eva claimed to be a conservative republican.

Ever.

 

[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.

 

[-S-]

The right to secede is throughly debatable. As the constitution has no provisions for secession. With any alteration of US State count requiring a majority vote of existing states. You disagree. Why should I care?

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.

And even following your assumption, the attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Just as the US military invaded Mexico and conquered huge swaths, so too could the US invade and conquer the 'confederacy'.

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.

Rebellion or invasion, either is as legit as the other.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Was there some kind of point to your post?

Nah, thats just your hood.

When it comes to vicious personal attacks, you're the champ.

Im a beast against immoral bigots. Got that right.

Gay marriage is the future.
Slaves are the past.

The south will rise again. If i vacation there, cuz ill be fuckin.

You're a beast against yourself?

Don't you claim to be a conservative Republican? You should just go ahead an register as a Democrat and all the cognitive dissonance will end.

No, ive neva eva eva eva eva claimed to be a conservative republican.

Ever.

That's right, I have you confused with another moron.

 

[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.