There is a great deal of confusion in SF about what constitutes being liberal ... Victor is represented in Congress by Nancy Pelosi who by an astounding feat of contortion claims to somehow be "main stream" ...

speaking only for the Jew chick and me, seems right.

The Jew Chick and Me would be a great name for a folk duo...

I could ask why you wouldn't be offended. You claim to be a conservative....

I literally asked the question "... so... conservatives want to keep slavery?" and his answer was

"Now you’re catching on. Just like it was the Liberal in him that preferred having sex with men."


The answer could have been... "no". but it wasn't.

If you want to claim to be a conservative, maybe you should be bothered that he wants to lump you in with some group that wants to keep slavery...

...you could also choose whether or not you want to be offended that he's going to tell you what your sexuality has to be too... I know of two log cabin republicans (or were until trump...) who would be pretty pissed off that they were getting stereotyped too....

and stop being a sensitive sally about dead children. If you cared so much you'd actually try to do something.

Why would I be offended?
He wasn't saying what you claim he was. He made some generalities based on the time. I mean, would you be surprised to learn that conservatives of the mid 1800's were mostly in favor of slavery? Doesn't conforming to the status quo help identify conservatism?
Doesn't make it right. In fact, on this subject it makes them very very wrong.
But we can't over react when someone generalizes about 1860 conservatives and we can't extrapolate it out to mean that it's the same for 2018 conservatives.
We can't.
Unless we're an over sensitive snowflake, of course.

And I won't take your bait on the dead children comment.
I'll let your true character show itself without my influence.

I think you're reading an awful lot into his statements.
There's a reason I phrased my posts as questions.

My original point being that Lincoln was gay, and his sexuality had “something” to do with his politics can be sorta summed up in the last few posts. I specifically avoided debating Victor about this because he gets so G.D. twisted & angry in such situations. Everything has to be proven to the punctuated letter, to the point of a raging conclusion. I’d rather not expend that kind of energy over such a lame point. In other words, victor, you get waaaay too wound up about minor things. Conversation with you is extremely strained, because you seem like you’re always on the verge of blowing a gasket. It’s never fun to talk to someone like this.

How old is the term “bleeding heart Liberals”? 1930s? This personality trait isn’t something new. One thing is for certain sure. Some things change, and some things stay the same. And this board hasn’t changed a bit. Y’all will argue to the death over anything.

This got old, quick.



I popped back in this thread to tell a funny story that I’ve noticed that routinely happens with my book collecting.

A couple of years ago I was at work on lunch break reading the news & there was a story how the students at UC-Berkeley wanted to expunge all memory of one of the Founders of the University of California, and the Sierra Club, Joseph LeConte, for his slave-holding past. I’d never heard of him before so I decided to look into him. He was such a fascinating person, that I really need to find a good biography of him. His life story doesn’t really get good until after the war.

It turns out that he was born on a Georgia plantation that was started by his forebearers many generations before his birth. He was the “owner” of the plantation, that never really held his interest, just a few short years before the war.

He later wrote several books, but right now I only have one he wrote in 1936 (?) called, ‘ware Sherman. It is the story of him being in the run, and one step ahead of Sherman’s troops in the winter of 1864/65.

At the beginning of this book he writes that he could have sold the entire plantation, and walked away a very rich man. It was something he was seriously tempted to do on several occasions. But the one thing that kept him from doing so, was knowing that the lives of his (slaves) and servants would be thrown into turmoil. And he did not want to do that. I thought that was interesting. On a side note, His Sister also wrote a diary of the seige of Colombia, SC.

All of that isn’t all that interesting. Joseph Leconte didn’t really come into himself until he reached California. I think it’s a shame modern day students sullied his life’s very imports work over what I (briefly) described above.

But to wrap this up, what struck me as funny, was when I ordered his book I noticed it was printed at UC-B, and had a bill of sale to a resident that lived in Berkeley.

I’ve also received several books that after purchase, I see they were part of the UC-Berkeley Library, and they had gotten rid of them. A lot of the books I buy are former library books. Spending $10 on a library book vs $50+ for a non-library Book makes sense sometimes. Many of these books I buy are coming from liberal school systems & universities.

I never fail to see the irony in this. But, I’ll glady give them a home. Ha!

I'm pretty sure he just admitted he definitely meant it that way...

well... we can agree you're on a different astral plane than me.





of course, there is no such thing as an astral plane... so have fun there.

I don't get mad...

...but I am going to keep poking at someone who goes into the politics forum, posts about their conviction that Abraham Lincoln was a gay liberal, and that this explains his desire to free the slaves.... and then gets upset because people demand "Everything has to be proven to the punctuated letter, to the point of a raging conclusion. I’d rather not expend that kind of energy over such a lame point."...

You kinda should have expected the response you got. You're not a noob.

You're kidding about Victor, right?

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate his zeal...
But if anyone ever trips upon something related to the gay? Watch out.
It's like he's a knight in shining armor saving the damsels in distress.

And it's not WHAT he says when he's puffing out his chest. It's how he tries to dismantle the opposition through wordplay.

Hell, much of the time I actually agree with him, but that wouldn't be any fun.

So don't kid yourself.

And MattieB really does suck butt.

My middle name is Sherman.

How about a specific Sherman?

Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand..
Peach top, Peach tails, never fails...
Must have been a dream I don't believe where I've been..
Come on, let's do it again..!!

I swear you won't be happy unless I just meekly accept any stupid thing said on this site.

I'm not married to you.

it is funny.
maybe I'm warped.

The $hit is bananas.

I haven't laughed this much at a thread since Magwitch posted.

So...why did he free the slaves?

The guy was a Renaissance man but you're kind of failing to mention why his legacy has fallen on hard times. Besides manufacturing explosives for the Confederacy, he said things like " the sudden enfranchisement of the negro without qualification was the greatest political crime ever perpetrated by any people" and wrote that slavery should've died long before it did, but he still did not accept racial equality. When he died he'd been working on a paper against suffrage.
It's understandable how people of color and women would not want to celebrate the guy.

His was a profoundly curious and powerful mind. No kidding! His list of accomplishments is stupifying!
So, I guess the moral of his story is, don't say even a few dumb things or you get voted off the island.
Or the bookstore.

I'm pretty sure he had mixed feelings about slavery until he saw it possibly expanding to more states. The Brits and French abolished slavery 3 decades earlier and were getting ready to recognize the Confederacy. That's when he put his foot down I think.

He never hid the fact that he shared beds with men. Something that tells me anyway that he had nothing to hid.

One last comment about all this, and I'm going to let it die . . . In regards to C.A. Tripp, one thing I like about his analysis, is, with him being gay, and him being fully convinced that Lincoln was gay is . . . . "It takes one to know one".

Or to every hammer.

He did have an agenda, and revisionist history is crap whether you like or agree with it or not.

At least no one is questioning Sherman’s sexuality. God bless his soul.

Especially after moving on up to the east side. Weezie was happy!