Posted on 04/12/2005 1:11:23 PM PDT by gopwinsin04
A homosexual advocacy group is planning to hold a discussion on 'gay icons' in US history'--including President Abe Lincoln--at part of its national celebration at Philadelphia's Independence Hall later this spring.
Equality Forum is organizing a 'national celebration' to mark the 40th anniversary of the 'gay civil rights movement' which it says began with a small demonstration at Independence Hall years before the Stonewall riots in New York City.
The panelists include a 'recognized expert' on Eleanor Roosevelt, and the editor of CA Tripp's new book 'The Initmate Life of Abraham Lincoln' in a panel discusson of 'closeted public leaders.'
'Governor McGreavey showed mainsream Americans that homophobia has kept those who seek elected office in the closet,' said Malcom Lazin, executive director of Equality Forum.
'These public officials include Abraham Lincoln, who saved the nation, emancipated the slaves and founded the modern Republican Party.
Lazin said he has read 'The Intimate Life of Abraham Linclon'. 'As a gay man and an amateur historian, I find the evidence indisputable that the 16th President of the United States, Abe Lincoln, was a gay man.
'Anyone not blinded by homophobia will recognize that the president who preserved our republic was gay. It is time that US historical figures be emancipated from the closet.'
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Event Organizers Hope to 'Emancipate' Attendees from their Anal Virginity
As part of his provocation, "A Jovial Cad" is actively pinging another poster who I do not communicate with for the reason that he has harassed me personally on other threads in the past as you are well aware. I have no desire to have anything to do with that other poster and wish to avoid any confrontation with him on this thread. I am accordingly asking you to intervene now before it devolves any further.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1382308/posts?page=75#75
Odd, though, that he has this sudden objection to having "anything to do with that other poster," as he claims, while simultaneously referring to that "other poster" as here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1382308/posts?page=93#93
"GOPcapitalist" may not want to have "anything to do with that other poster," but he sure likes to discuss him when the mood suits him, and without the courtesy of a *ping. This is the complainant's Standard Operating Procedure: he resolutely insists that everyone else follow the rigid text of rules he himself disdains to pay the slightest attention to and, in point of fact, has little but contempt for, as demonstrated here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1382308/posts?page=81#81
So, what we have here boils down to this: the original offender in the "actively attempting to incite a flamewar" department moaning that he's actually the victim of actions he initiated, and at the same time having the effrontery to refer to third parties on the one hand without the decency of a *ping, and then crying foul when said posters are *pinged to remarks about them.
The record on this is clear, and speaks for itself, post-by-post. "GOPcapitalist" routinely bites off more than he can chew, and then complains that others are responsible for actions he foolishly undertook in threads. This seems to be his typical modus operandi.
I'm fine with however it gets sorted out, and will abide by whatever final determination is made by the mods, period. But this pattern of the petulant poster should be noted--nasty beyond belief until he gets a dose of the same, and then weepy to authority about the sand being kicked back in the bully's direction with the same amount of vigor in which it was launched.
That's all I ask. Thank you for your time.
I'm a gay man and a gay journalist and as a gay man and a gay journalist I too am pissed they got rid of Hendrie. For the bomb-throwing Savage who's schtick has gotten very, very old of late. Hendrie would give it to you just as high and hard but with a lot more humor and insight.
Also getting rid of Chrshbaker (as it sounded like Larry the Cable Guy would call him) to keep Savage was an additional mistake.
The right thing to do is have your comments removed, AJC.
Apparently it's a habit with this poster. The mods usually strike down these kind of racist, libelous comments. I hope that they would do the same here.
It's called "defining deviancy down" (for them) and "defining deviancy up" (for "normal" people). It's a really serious game, and some serious essays have been written about it in The New Republic e.g., a few years ago.
And then the thesis, no matter how bogus, no matter how transparently bogus, is then publicized and talked to death. The goal is a ring of homosexual activists standing around the whole country repeating "gay, gay, gay, gay, gay!!" as a desensitizing exercise -- the same kind of exercise the Army undertakes with veterans suffering from certain kinds of PTSD.
Hebetation of our natural defenses against wickedness is the overall objective, and the wearing down of decency.
Yeah I know, but these heterophobes are intent on sullying the reputation of every deceased statesman, composer, writer, sculptor, painter, poet, and writer through hearsay and innuendo. But at the same they are loath to admit they share the same sexual perversion with many of histories murderous psychopaths.
Indeed. A direct reference can be found on FR here. It's listed as item 50, which states:
50) Infer and speculate that famous historical figures were gay for two reasons: first, they are dead as a door nail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel; (page 188) SourceThis is has been debunked on a number of FR threads. If no one posts any links, I'll try tomorrow.
Here 'tis:
2005
Panel debunks theory Lincoln was gay (Lincoln Courier), FreeRepublic
Honest, Abe? (Weekly Standard), FreeRepublic
The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (Weekly Standard), FreeRepublic
2004
A Republican hero, but was Abe Lincoln gay? (Guardian(UK)), FreeRepublic
New book argues Abe Lincoln was gay (UPI - N/A)
As LG said: "gay gay gay gay gay..." Homosexual advocates want to push gay issues every day and every way until everbody is desensitized.
I did mention the Confederacy to A Jovial Cad...I said, after he called me a neo-Confederate, (as I've said before on FR), I have absolutely no affection for the Confederacy or its "peculiar institution"
I do have great reverence for the US Constitution and the federalist system of government with which our Founders blessed us....the Constitution is essentially what this nation was (and still pretends to be). Presidents, congressman and military enlistees take an oath to defend, not the flag, not the United States, not the American people...but the Constitution...it is America. So, I don't think too much of the argument that Lincoln engaged in widespread violations of the Constitution to save the US...you cannot, by definition, save the US while destroying the Constitution
I don't think its really debatable anymore that slavery was already in a terminal state by 1860 and it would have died out gradually (but almost assuredly before 1900) even in the Deep South...whether the South remained part of the union or not. Numerous economic studies have shown that once the Lecompton Consitution failed in Kansas and once it became clear that several northern states were not going to enforce the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act...slavery was basically finished...it was only a matter of time. Add to that fact, that there had been in the years leading up to 1860, a mass migration of white labor from the South to the North...how could white labor compete economically with slave labor? Some seem to forget that the vast majority of southerners (including Confederate soldiers) did not own slaves
So...I have always wondered...why was the war necessary? Why not let the South go? Once it was gone, Lincoln could have led an effort to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act and passed legislation in Congress making all of the territories free...it would have been easy without the objections of Southern congressmen. Congress could have also shut the door to migration of white labor from the South...and the internal economic pressure to end slavery in the Confederacy would have been overwhelming....it would have receded faster than it did in the northern states between the years 1789 and 1840.
The reasons Lincoln chose war are obvious...Lincoln really didn't care so much about ending slavery as he did about (1) preserving the Union (the Whig/Republican economic policies were dependent on money coming from the South) and (2) ensuring that there would be no mass migration of escaping slaves to Northern states (he often said he wanted to keep the territories open to white labor...I don't mention that to condemn Lincoln...that was the predominant sentiment in the North at that time...but that is one of the reasons he wasn't going to let the South leave (and why he supported the Fugitive Slave Act)...he didn't want to risk a mass of slaves fleeing from the new Confederacy to the US)
You know...the first secession movement related to the slavery issue was the one led in New England by radical abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who argued that the north should secede from the US and form a new free nation.
I suppose that Lincoln's supporter wouldn't be able to call Garrison a racist...but would have denounced him for "destroying the nation"
I suppose...from a military point of view, it wasn't a bad thing...the idea is to win
But I think the whole Civil War was a bad (and unnecessary) thing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1382308/posts?page=75#75
Admin Mod:
Actually, this statement isn't quite true.
The exchange began several posts previously, with #53, in which A Jovial Cad assaulted Irontank over a post the latter put up in reply to the thread article, in which Irontank repeated in other words H. L. Mencken's well-known complaint about people's constantly misunderstanding the Gettysburg Address and what Lincoln's words really signified in the way of heralding a political transformation of the United States brought about by Lincoln's policy.
This change was so great that eminent historian Shelby Foote had to resort to explaining the change in terms of grammar, from saying that "the United States are" to "the United States is".
This great change, as Mencken noted, was a bedrock change, a fundamental change, that not incidentally (since we're also discussing morality) carried the United States from the morally safe ground of a federated republic founded on strict construction, constitutionalism, and subsidiarity within the broad tradition of Western Christian political morality, to the more doubtful ground of statism, centralization, and absolutism -- which as we all know have also produced some horrific regimes that emphasized absolutism, a direction we still seem to be drifting in no matter which party holds power.
Now, the reasonable basis of Irontank's post, which is also accurate in its details, was apparently displeasing to A Jovial Cad, who entered the thread with his hair on fire, upbraiding Irontank for his tag line as his opening bid and spitting fury at Southerners whom he characterized harshly as a group without bothering to ascertain whether Irontank's other opinions even remotely resembled A Jovial Cad's characterization of them:
To: gopwinsin04
Anyone not blinded by homophobia will recognize that the president who preserved our republic was gayPreserved the Republic?
Well...not exactly...Old Abe preserved the political union of the states but with his pushing through unconstitutional railroad subsidies, high protective tariffs, centralized banking, internal improvements, the first federal income tax, blockading southern ports without the consent of Congress, his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, imprisoning the entire Maryland state legislature at Fort McHenry,censoring all telegraph communications, shutting down of dozens of Northern newspapers, imprisoning thousands of Northern political opponents, forced deportation of Ohio congressman Vallandigham, leading a military that engaged in "total war" on the southern states (shelling and burning entire cities and ravaging the entire Shenendoah Valley)...its hard to claim that he actually preserved the Republic...destroyed it is more like it
52 posted on 04/12/2005 4:15:08 PM CDT by Irontank (Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Irontank
First, you need to fix that sig line.Second:
its hard to claim that he actually preserved the Republic...destroyed it is more like it
Yeah, right. Just what FR
doesn'tneeds: another raving neo-confederate whom despises the Union the secessionists tried to destroy, and the man who saved it.53 posted on 04/12/2005 4:24:41 PM CDT by A Jovial Cad
free dixie,sw
They do the same to so many other figures in history.
That's part of the homosexual community's well planned and well funded campaign to normalize homosexuality.
An excerpt from "The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game"
Infer and speculate that famous historical figures were gay for two reasons: first, they are dead as a door nail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel; (page 188)
See also:
The Overhauling of Straight America
Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
One thing you can count on is that “a surprisingly high percentage” of homosexuals are pathological liars.
Scripter to the rescue.
Actually, that was your cue, and you were all lined up!
The Big Lie. So much of the citizenry doesn't think for themselves at all - they just absorb whatever the mass media spews out, and after a certain amount of absorption, they take on the color of the spew. Whether there's any truth in or not is irrelevant.
Kind of like so many people vote for the person whose ads they've seen the most. Face time.
And, of course, the degradation of public screwels fits in nicely with this plan. Rational and clear thinking are not the goals of government education.
And he crys his big crocodile tears ("I do not communicate with for the reason that he has harassed me personally on other threads in the past as you are well aware.") while continuing to post the type of slander that has resulted in several of his posts being deleted on those threads and the threads even being pulled (in some cases).
There is a pattern here, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out where the problem lies!
I've stayed away from this thread, although pinged, just to see the same old pattern with this highly immature poster continue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.