The Interesting Scoop on George Washington, Our First President!

[FJO]

If you agree with me, why do you post an article derogatory to him?

Since when has owning slaves been honorable?

What the Hell stopped Africans to load their boats, navigate across the ocean and conquer new lands and peoples, other than their inherent lack of know-how, courage, education and ambition and then hold the conquered people as their slaves?

Back then, owning slaves was the norm. Everybody did it, the most expertly cruel slave owners being black.

Most black slaves brought to America were sold to slave traders by fellow blacks, who sold out their fellow blacks for profit. Kind of like what Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Elijah Cummings, Barak Obama, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangels, Jesse Jackson, just to name a few are doing today.

Back then a runaway slaves who escaped the plantation and wanting their freedom were crippled by having their Achilles tendon cut. Today, runaway slaves from the liberal/Democrat plantation are besmirched, denigrated and attacked for daring to be conservatives/Republicans.

Honorable? The ilk of those mentioned above have no clue about honorable.

Liars and cheaters and thieves have no honor.

 

[Samson]

This is most interesting reading written by an award-winning journalist and learned person in history and what many may not know about our first president, especially as is exemplified in the 13th paragraph and throughout her article.

George Washington: The gay-friendly father of our country

More Queer Drama =

Because Washington did not castrate Queers, he was "Gay-Friendly."

 

[tinydancer]

I say we give Political Torch and others their very own gay forum!

That way when I walk into USMB and into politics I can discuss current politics without sexuality involved.

Because it is getting boring as hell in here between threads like this one and the other fave by the moronic left "Republicans have poopy pants".

 

[Peach]

I didn't get past the first paragraph of that tripe in the link, but does this Victoria A. Brownworth think that traditional historical perceptions of Washington positioned him as gay-friendly? From all the revolutionary era history I know, I've never run across that view in the historical record.

That's not to say that Washington wasn't a bit of an eye-brow raiser, anyway. I think he had an attraction to married women, sending love letters to one, and then marrying a widow. Martha was noted for her match-making, but I think George was "into" that as well. Don't quote me on this, but I think the two of them might have had something to do with the union between Dolly Payne and James Madison.

In some weird way, he might have seen himself as some sort of father figure. To say that he was gay-friendly, though, is to throw one out in left field.

Washington refused to accept the concentional "morality" of the time and would not expel colonists from the Army because of rumors or statements they were gay; a good commander for that reason. He placed the struggle for liberty above salacious crapola.

 

[Howey]

I say we give Political Torch and others their very own gay forum!

That way when I walk into USMB and into politics I can discuss current politics without sexuality involved.

Because it is getting boring as hell in here between threads like this one and the other fave by the moronic left "Republicans have poopy pants".

Or you could leave.

 

[tinydancer]

How about Lincoln?

So some Union dude was suckin' Lincolns' Log? Got any proof other than "Lincoln's marriage was sometimes rocky. The couple fought incessantly! Therefore he MUST have been Gay! Why just look, he preferred the company of men!"

In straight male society that's called "normal". F*ckin' women are crazy sometimes.

You know who prefers the company of Women? Gays.

Sylvia Rhue, Ph.D.: A Family History Provides More Evidence That Lincoln Was Gay

oh. I'm glad to see you think it's ok for straight guys to get sucked off by homos. How many times have you done this? Which bath house?

History according to Howey. Everyone in history who was a person of greatness was gay. Everyone who was evil in history was straight.

 

[Samson]

I didn't get past the first paragraph of that tripe in the link, but does this Victoria A. Brownworth think that traditional historical perceptions of Washington positioned him as gay-friendly? From all the revolutionary era history I know, I've never run across that view in the historical record.

That's not to say that Washington wasn't a bit of an eye-brow raiser, anyway. I think he had an attraction to married women, sending love letters to one, and then marrying a widow. Martha was noted for her match-making, but I think George was "into" that as well. Don't quote me on this, but I think the two of them might have had something to do with the union between Dolly Payne and James Madison.

In some weird way, he might have seen himself as some sort of father figure. To say that he was gay-friendly, though, is to throw one out in left field.

Washington refused to accept the concentional "morality" of the time and would not expel colonists from the Army because of rumors or statements they were gay; a good commander for that reason. He placed the struggle for liberty above salacious crapola.

So......don't ask/don't tell was, and is, "gay friendly?"



Maybe he did not have the Gaydar that the modern author seems to have fabricated for him.

 

[Samson]

So some Union dude was suckin' Lincolns' Log? Got any proof other than "Lincoln's marriage was sometimes rocky. The couple fought incessantly! Therefore he MUST have been Gay! Why just look, he preferred the company of men!"

In straight male society that's called "normal". F*ckin' women are crazy sometimes.

You know who prefers the company of Women? Gays.

Sylvia Rhue, Ph.D.: A Family History Provides More Evidence That Lincoln Was Gay

oh. I'm glad to see you think it's ok for straight guys to get sucked off by homos. How many times have you done this? Which bath house?

History according to Howey. Everyone in history who was a person of greatness was gay. Everyone who was evil in history was straight.

Not just Howie.

University Professors (and quite frankly, some Public School Teachers) like to spice-up History by mixing in sexual innuendo, and if this happens to include Siamese Twins, The Fat Man, The Bearded Lady, or Queers, all the better:

Nothing draws a crowd like a freakshow

 

[tinydancer]

I say we give Political Torch and others their very own gay forum!

That way when I walk into USMB and into politics I can discuss current politics without sexuality involved.

Because it is getting boring as hell in here between threads like this one and the other fave by the moronic left "Republicans have poopy pants".

Or you could leave.

In your dreams.

 

[Peach]

I didn't get past the first paragraph of that tripe in the link, but does this Victoria A. Brownworth think that traditional historical perceptions of Washington positioned him as gay-friendly? From all the revolutionary era history I know, I've never run across that view in the historical record.

That's not to say that Washington wasn't a bit of an eye-brow raiser, anyway. I think he had an attraction to married women, sending love letters to one, and then marrying a widow. Martha was noted for her match-making, but I think George was "into" that as well. Don't quote me on this, but I think the two of them might have had something to do with the union between Dolly Payne and James Madison.

In some weird way, he might have seen himself as some sort of father figure. To say that he was gay-friendly, though, is to throw one out in left field.

Washington refused to accept the concentional "morality" of the time and would not expel colonists from the Army because of rumors or statements they were gay; a good commander for that reason. He placed the struggle for liberty above salacious crapola.

So......don't ask/don't tell was, and is, "gay friendly?"



Maybe he did not have the Gaydar that the modern author seems to have fabricated for him.

No, there are accounts Washington was informed some of his men were gay, he is reported to have had the wisdom not to be bothered with such matters.

 

[Peach]

So some Union dude was suckin' Lincolns' Log? Got any proof other than "Lincoln's marriage was sometimes rocky. The couple fought incessantly! Therefore he MUST have been Gay! Why just look, he preferred the company of men!"

In straight male society that's called "normal". F*ckin' women are crazy sometimes.

You know who prefers the company of Women? Gays.

Sylvia Rhue, Ph.D.: A Family History Provides More Evidence That Lincoln Was Gay

oh. I'm glad to see you think it's ok for straight guys to get sucked off by homos. How many times have you done this? Which bath house?

History according to Howey. Everyone in history who was a person of greatness was gay. Everyone who was evil in history was straight.

There is a valid question about Hamilton though, Burr killed him, so historians continue debating. Nor are such inquiries partof a "freak show"; historians pour over every detail in the lives of those important in US history.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If these Founding Fathers and other Historical figures WERE Gay then that means Gays were probably responsible for Slavery.

It makes complete sense now why Men would want to OWN other Men doesn't it?

 

[Samson]

Washington refused to accept the concentional "morality" of the time and would not expel colonists from the Army because of rumors or statements they were gay; a good commander for that reason. He placed the struggle for liberty above salacious crapola.

So......don't ask/don't tell was, and is, "gay friendly?"



Maybe he did not have the Gaydar that the modern author seems to have fabricated for him.

No, there are accounts Washington was informed some of his men were gay, he is reported to have had the wisdom not to be bothered with such matters.

Or there simply was no evidence for him to act upon.

You realise that just because the article claims that members of the colonial army were queer, and claims that Wahington may have known they were queer, doesn't mean he ACTUALLY KNEW anything, right? In fact, the article only cites ONE case where Washington ACTUALLY KNEW anything.

ONE.

 

[Peach]

So......don't ask/don't tell was, and is, "gay friendly?"



Maybe he did not have the Gaydar that the modern author seems to have fabricated for him.

No, there are accounts Washington was informed some of his men were gay, he is reported to have had the wisdom not to be bothered with such matters.

Or there simply was no evidence for him to act upon.

You realise that just because the article claims that members of the colonial army were queer, and claims that Wahington may have known they were queer, doesn't mean he ACTUALLY KNEW anything, right? In fact, the article only cites ONE case where Washington ACTUALLY KNEW anything.

ONE.

I did not rely upon the article, I have read previous accounts, one could phrase it that way I believe. Washington did not want to hear useless gossip, he had a war to be fought.

 

[The Rabbi]

Washington refused to accept the concentional "morality" of the time and would not expel colonists from the Army because of rumors or statements they were gay; a good commander for that reason. He placed the struggle for liberty above salacious crapola.

So......don't ask/don't tell was, and is, "gay friendly?"



Maybe he did not have the Gaydar that the modern author seems to have fabricated for him.

No, there are accounts Washington was informed some of his men were gay, he is reported to have had the wisdom not to be bothered with such matters.

Because he was a sensitive Harvey Milk type, right?
Wrong. Washington was constrained because most of his troops were volunteers and with a long war and bad conditions many were leaving and going home. So he wasnt going to kick anyone out unless they had done something serious. The pro gay shit is just nonsense.

 

[The Rabbi]

So......don't ask/don't tell was, and is, "gay friendly?"



Maybe he did not have the Gaydar that the modern author seems to have fabricated for him.

No, there are accounts Washington was informed some of his men were gay, he is reported to have had the wisdom not to be bothered with such matters.

Or there simply was no evidence for him to act upon.

You realise that just because the article claims that members of the colonial army were queer, and claims that Wahington may have known they were queer, doesn't mean he ACTUALLY KNEW anything, right? In fact, the article only cites ONE case where Washington ACTUALLY KNEW anything.

ONE.

The article was a shoddy piece of propaganda without a shred of credible evidence for any claim. Since lefties are real bad at logic and reason they buy right into it.

 

[Peach]

No, there are accounts Washington was informed some of his men were gay, he is reported to have had the wisdom not to be bothered with such matters.

Or there simply was no evidence for him to act upon.

You realise that just because the article claims that members of the colonial army were queer, and claims that Wahington may have known they were queer, doesn't mean he ACTUALLY KNEW anything, right? In fact, the article only cites ONE case where Washington ACTUALLY KNEW anything.

ONE.

The article was a shoddy piece of propaganda without a shred of credible evidence for any claim. Since lefties are real bad at logic and reason they buy right into it.

Did the article reference Von Steuben, he was gay, Franklin held him in high esteem. I read it, Von Steuben was discussed, his sexuality came way below his desire to learn of this odd bunch of colonists who believed in representative government.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No, there are accounts Washington was informed some of his men were gay, he is reported to have had the wisdom not to be bothered with such matters.

Or there simply was no evidence for him to act upon.

You realise that just because the article claims that members of the colonial army were queer, and claims that Wahington may have known they were queer, doesn't mean he ACTUALLY KNEW anything, right? In fact, the article only cites ONE case where Washington ACTUALLY KNEW anything.

ONE.

I did not rely upon the article, I have read previous accounts, one could phrase it that way I believe. Washington did not want to hear useless gossip, he had a war to be fought.

Well thats what PT is doing....mindless gossip.

 

[bodecea]

If you agree with me, why do you post an article derogatory to him?

Since when has owning slaves been honorable?

What the Hell stopped Africans to load their boats, navigate across the ocean and conquer new lands and peoples, other than their inherent lack of know-how, courage, education and ambition and then hold the conquered people as their slaves?

Back then, owning slaves was the norm. Everybody did it, the most expertly cruel slave owners being black.

Most black slaves brought to America were sold to slave traders by fellow blacks, who sold out their fellow blacks for profit. Kind of like what Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Elijah Cummings, Barak Obama, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangels, Jesse Jackson, just to name a few are doing today.

Back then a runaway slaves who escaped the plantation and wanting their freedom were crippled by having their Achilles tendon cut. Today, runaway slaves from the liberal/Democrat plantation are besmirched, denigrated and attacked for daring to be conservatives/Republicans.

Honorable? The ilk of those mentioned above have no clue about honorable.

Liars and cheaters and thieves have no honor.

Love how you try to blame blacks for slavery.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Let me get this straight. Only 3% of the entire US population is ghey but yet we're suppose to buy that all of our Founders were flamers back over 238 years ago?? ROFLMAO