The Interesting Scoop on George Washington, Our First President!

[bodecea]

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

Didn't read the srticle, did you?

 

[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

Didn't read the srticle, did you?

Don't read srticle's..How bout you?

 

[mudwhistle]

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".

Give them their own tavern.

Call it "The Blue Oyster".

 

[bodecea]

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

Didn't read the srticle, did you?

Don't read srticle's..How bout you?

Sorry...typing on the road....I meant to say "article"....You didn't read the article, did you?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It's not clear von Steuben was gay. The source quoted is Randy SHilts, who is a gay activist, thus it is more in the nature of propaganda than truth.

 

[The Rabbi]

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".

Give the their own tavern.

Call it "The Blue Oyster".

I prefer "The White Swallow"

 

[onecut39]

Of course our founders were liberals in their day, and to preserve what they began to build, you now have to be a conservative.

I guess that is true. The question? What modern person would want to live in the in our country as is was first conceived?

Not I. Certainly no woman and no black. The country has changed but it has been overwhelmingly for the better and that was done by liberals. This does not mean that we yet have it right.

We are not even close.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course our founders were liberals in their day, and to preserve what they began to build, you now have to be a conservative.

I guess that is true. The question? What modern person would want to live in the in our country as is was first conceived?

Not I. Certainly no woman and no black. The country has changed but it has been overwhelmingly for the better and that was done by liberals. This does not mean that we yet have it right.

We are not even close.

What do you mean "as first conceived"? Do you mean the same technology, same medicine, same transportation, same economy? Of course not. I wouldn't want to live in this country as it was 30 years ago (and I did live in it!).
But if you mean the level of freedom enjoyed, the very limited federal government, the ability to move anywhere, do anything, be anyone, then yeah I'd do that in a second.

 

[onecut39]

Not trying to knock Washington, he was immensely important in our history but I really hate the "simple farmer" crap. Translating his worth into today"s dollars would show that he was a multi, multi millionaire.

 

[BlindBoo]

George Washington was a man most could only dream of being. He was honorable and kind. If more people were like him, this would would be a better place.

On 28 May, not far from the site of modern-day Pittsburgh, Washington's forces—a crew of 40 Virginians and a dozen allied Iroquois warriors—encountered a small French scouting force.

The battle lasted only fifteen minutes. Suffering only one casualty of their own, Washington's men killed a dozen Frenchmen and captured over twenty more. Victory quickly turned to nightmare, however; in the aftermath of the battle, Tanaghrisson—the leader of the Iroquois in Washington's contingent—led a massacre of the surrendered French prisoners. (Tanaghrisson had his own reasons for seeking to deliberately provoke war between the French, British, and Iroquois.) The first unarmed Frenchman killed was a noble officer, Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, who was murdered instantly via a tomahawk blow to the head. This killing of an unarmed prisoner of war was a war crime—a war crime for which George Washington, as commanding officer, technically bore responsibility.

George Washington: French & Indian War

As Tanaghrisson had hoped, the revelation of Jumonville's death caused an international scandal, quickly igniting a globe-spanning military conflict known in Europe as the Seven Years' War and in North America as the French and Indian War.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not trying to knock Washington, he was immensely important in our history but I really hate the "simple farmer" crap. Translating his worth into today"s dollars would show that he was a multi, multi millionaire.

All of the Founders were the privileged wealthy men of their era. Because accomplished people can accomplish stuff. Today not one of them would be in politics because the rabble mentality hates them.

 

[The Rabbi]

George Washington was a man most could only dream of being. He was honorable and kind. If more people were like him, this would would be a better place.

On 28 May, not far from the site of modern-day Pittsburgh, Washington's forces—a crew of 40 Virginians and a dozen allied Iroquois warriors—encountered a small French scouting force.

The battle lasted only fifteen minutes. Suffering only one casualty of their own, Washington's men killed a dozen Frenchmen and captured over twenty more. Victory quickly turned to nightmare, however; in the aftermath of the battle, Tanaghrisson—the leader of the Iroquois in Washington's contingent—led a massacre of the surrendered French prisoners. (Tanaghrisson had his own reasons for seeking to deliberately provoke war between the French, British, and Iroquois.) The first unarmed Frenchman killed was a noble officer, Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, who was murdered instantly via a tomahawk blow to the head. This killing of an unarmed prisoner of war was a war crime—a war crime for which George Washington, as commanding officer, technically bore responsibility.

George Washington: French & Indian War

As Tanaghrisson had hoped, the revelation of Jumonville's death caused an international scandal, quickly igniting a globe-spanning military conflict known in Europe as the Seven Years' War and in North America as the French and Indian War.

Sorry but that's responsive to the quotation, how?

 

[Samson]

Didn't read the srticle, did you?

Don't read srticle's..How bout you?

Sorry...typing on the road....I meant to say "article"....You didn't read the article, did you?

I took time out of correcting obvious typos to read the article.

Nothing in the article accuses Washington of any queerness, although there is a lot of "tone" if a queer wants to hear it "he liked being with his men."

The article is really designed as an argument for the once established practice of "don't ask/don't tell" in the US Army (and presumably other miltary branches).

 

[Peach]

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.

It's not clear von Steuben was gay. The source quoted is Randy SHilts, who is a gay activist, thus it is more in the nature of propaganda than truth.

Another source, Von steuben's sexual orientation is not something Shilts dreamed up, it is well documented. No, I do not have all my history books from 26-30 years ago, many burned in a fire 2003.

Germany and the Americas: O-Z - Google Books

 

[BlindBoo]

George Washington was a man most could only dream of being. He was honorable and kind. If more people were like him, this would would be a better place.

On 28 May, not far from the site of modern-day Pittsburgh, Washington's forces—a crew of 40 Virginians and a dozen allied Iroquois warriors—encountered a small French scouting force.

The battle lasted only fifteen minutes. Suffering only one casualty of their own, Washington's men killed a dozen Frenchmen and captured over twenty more. Victory quickly turned to nightmare, however; in the aftermath of the battle, Tanaghrisson—the leader of the Iroquois in Washington's contingent—led a massacre of the surrendered French prisoners. (Tanaghrisson had his own reasons for seeking to deliberately provoke war between the French, British, and Iroquois.) The first unarmed Frenchman killed was a noble officer, Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, who was murdered instantly via a tomahawk blow to the head. This killing of an unarmed prisoner of war was a war crime—a war crime for which George Washington, as commanding officer, technically bore responsibility.

George Washington: French & Indian War

As Tanaghrisson had hoped, the revelation of Jumonville's death caused an international scandal, quickly igniting a globe-spanning military conflict known in Europe as the Seven Years' War and in North America as the French and Indian War.

Sorry but that's responsive to the quotation, how?

He was an ambitious man with flaws that have been sanitized by history.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Since when has owning slaves been honorable?

Since the Egyptians owned Hebrew slaves.

I guess when you didn't have heavy equipment, building massive constructions was impossible without them.

Several thousand years ago slavery was supposed to be a way to pay off your debt. Slaves were by law supposed to be treated fairly. That changed. Eventually it became ownership.

Wrong owning another person has never been honorable I'm kinda mad that you of all people would seek to excuse it as "everybody did it".

Its akin to going to a Jazz club seeing everyone smoke weed and use that as an excuse to why you slamming dope in your arm is an honorable thing

 

[onecut39]

Of course our founders were liberals in their day, and to preserve what they began to build, you now have to be a conservative.

I guess that is true. The question? What modern person would want to live in the in our country as is was first conceived?

Not I. Certainly no woman and no black. The country has changed but it has been overwhelmingly for the better and that was done by liberals. This does not mean that we yet have it right.

We are not even close.

What do you mean "as first conceived"? Do you mean the same technology, same medicine, same transportation, same economy? Of course not. I wouldn't want to live in this country as it was 30 years ago (and I did live in it!).
But if you mean the level of freedom enjoyed, the very limited federal government, the ability to move anywhere, do anything, be anyone, then yeah I'd do that in a second.

You really believe that? The ability to do anything, be anyone? Hell, most could not even afford a perfunctory education. But be happy we are heading back to those days and already we are seeing the results. More and more young folks cannot "be" anything and it is the lack of government regulations and controls that are bringing this to be.

 

[mudwhistle]

Since when has owning slaves been honorable?

Since the Egyptians owned Hebrew slaves.

I guess when you didn't have heavy equipment, building massive constructions was impossible without them.

Several thousand years ago slavery was supposed to be a way to pay off your debt. Slaves were by law supposed to be treated fairly. That changed. Eventually it became ownership.

Wrong owning another person has never been honorable I'm kinda mad that you of all people would seek to excuse it as "everybody did it".

Its akin to going to a Jazz club seeing everyone smoke weed and use that as an excuse to why you slamming dope in your arm is an honorable thing

Not a good analogy.

At one time, believe it or not, owning slaves was accepted.

You cannot base everything off of today's standards, so looking back in history and demeaning our founding fathers because of today's standards is wholeheartedly dishonest.

In two hundred years owning a car or a home could be criminalized. Christianity could be criminalized in the next few years. We're damned near that now.

 

[Peach]

Since the Egyptians owned Hebrew slaves.

I guess when you didn't have heavy equipment, building massive constructions was impossible without them.

Several thousand years ago slavery was supposed to be a way to pay off your debt. Slaves were by law supposed to be treated fairly. That changed. Eventually it became ownership.

Wrong owning another person has never been honorable I'm kinda mad that you of all people would seek to excuse it as "everybody did it".

Its akin to going to a Jazz club seeing everyone smoke weed and use that as an excuse to why you slamming dope in your arm is an honorable thing

Not a good analogy.

At one time, believe it or not, owning slaves was accepted.

You cannot base everything off of today's standards, so looking back in history and demeaning our founding fathers because of today's standards is wholeheartedly dishonest.

In two hundred years owning a car or a home could be criminalized. Christianity could be criminalized in the next few years. We're damned near that now.

I posted Washignton's beliefs on slavery, yes, judge him by his era. Though I do NOT see Christianity being criminalized any time soon, meaning never. Christians will keep the faith, as will those of other faiths.

 

[Avatar4321]

As the article states there's no proof that Washington had homosexual relations. With anybody.
From the article:

Historians assert that passionate same-sex friendships were normative in the 18th century.

Surprise! Friendships are also "normative" today. But that doesn't mean guys are suckin' each others cawks.

Or that they approve of friends doing anything.