|
Man don't disparage onanism. It's a time-honored pastime.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Now there's a snipe of which even Abraham (or is it Moses? I forget) would approve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Re the missing Roman legion: did contemporary sources find it strange, or is it just something historians noted centuries later? From what I remember, the latter, except ancient history being what it is the document probably existed at some point and got wet or eaten by rats or burned or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
From experience, I've come across dozens of references to then extant protocols and journals that no longer exist, even just in the 1800s. The further back you go, the more of them have been lost. I have no doubt that the there has been bureaucracy in Europe for a millenium or more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
There is no contemporary source saying that IX Hispana ceased to exist, which is part of why there's confusion over its fate. It definitely existed and was stationed at York in 108, but definitely didn't exist by the time lists were made of all legions under Septimius Severus in 197. Theodor Mommsen put forward a theory that the legion was massacred in the north of Britain not long after 108, but there isn't any source that conclusively speaks of any legion being massacred there and there isn't any archaeological evidence that this happened either. More recent findings suggest that there may have been some part of IX Hispana stationed at Nijmegen in the Netherlands a few years after that, but before the end of the second century it just drops out of the record. In itself this suggests to some people that nothing especially bad happened to it, since the loss of a legion would have been a serious military disaster that someone would surely have mentioned at some point, but it's possible that we just lack the texts that did mention it, too. No antique historian that I'm aware of, though, ever commented on its fate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
I always figured Edward VIII stepped down because he was a big old Nazi sympathizer and Simpson was widely thought to be actively working for the Nazi government. The whole divorce-dealio was more of a face-saving maneuver that would let everybody go home satisfied. Not that he was terribly popular but people hating Edward VIII because he selfishly stepped down and forced his stuttering brother to the throne* is a different kind of hate than hating Edward VIII because he was a big old Nazi. *My Grandmother truly hated some things in this world. Edward VIII's selfishness as well as the existence of Oliver Cromwell and the Imperial Japanese were always on her hit list of things she hated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
There's no doubt that a lot of royalty were hella into Fascism until Hitler started to lose ground. After all, they were born to be better than the common folk, they had the means and the power. Only weirdly democratic or cowardly royalty would not back Hitler in the 1930s. Like this is self-preservation stuff. They'd have to make an active decision to be against facism, and that could blow up in their face. I don't defend it at all, I'm just saying. gently caress the royals, but also they're people so maybe just put them in prison instead of the guillotine (that's for the politicians who make the choice from the get-go) Carthag Tuek has a new favorite as of 04:25 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I always figured Edward VIII stepped down because he was a big old Nazi sympathizer and Simpson was widely thought to be actively working for the Nazi government. My parents (Americans) described Simpson as a shallow gold digger who wanted to be queen, and thought Edward was a spineless sap for falling for her. They just rolled their eyes at his abdication "for the woman that I love" line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:My parents (Americans) described Simpson as a shallow gold digger who wanted to be queen, and thought Edward was a spineless sap for falling for her. They just rolled their eyes at his abdication "for the woman that I love" line. Apparently she openly didn't give a poo poo about her boyfriend being a prince or king, and Edward likewise displayed a lack of care for traditions and customs when he got crowned. I'd imagine a headstrong woman who gave less of a poo poo about his royal status than he did was exactly what he was looking for. Also, his abdication meant we got George VI and then Elizabeth II.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:My parents (Americans) described Simpson as a shallow gold digger who wanted to be queen, and thought Edward was a spineless sap for falling for her. They just rolled their eyes at his abdication "for the woman that I love" line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Apparently she openly didn't give a poo poo about her boyfriend being a prince or king, and Edward likewise displayed a lack of care for traditions and customs when he got crowned. I'd imagine a headstrong woman who gave less of a poo poo about his royal status than he did was exactly what he was looking for. That they seemed happy living in obscurity in France seemed to belie my parents' attitude, but that's how they saw it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
If Edward had any balls at all, he've reminded the Church just why they're independant from the Pope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That they seemed happy living in obscurity in France seemed to belie my parents' attitude, but that's how they saw it. I think Edward was just a guy who really wanted to live as a wealthy fellow who didn't have any real responsibilities, and being thrust into kinghood didn't suit him. Marrying Simpson was not only something he wanted (it takes a lot of dedication to willingly give up being one of the most powerful men in the world for your relationship), I think it relieved him of some pressure and responsibility that he didn't much care to have on his shoulders. He spent 5 years in a Bahamas governor post and then did nothing but vacation, party, and get paid for interviews for the rest of his life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:If Edward had any balls at all, he've reminded the Church just why they're independant from the Pope. That wouldn't work. Any time a royal get uppity the prime minister summons them into his office, and brings out the preserved head of Charles I to show them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:That wouldn't work. Any time a royal get uppity the prime minister summons them into his office, and brings out the preserved head of Charles I to show them. The last prime minister used it in a very different way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:The last prime minister used it in a very different way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:The last prime minister used it in a very different way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:The last prime minister used it in a very different way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think Edward was just a guy who really wanted to live as a wealthy fellow who didn't have any real responsibilities, and being thrust into kinghood didn't suit him. Marrying Simpson was not only something he wanted (it takes a lot of dedication to willingly give up being one of the most powerful men in the world for your relationship), I think it relieved him of some pressure and responsibility that he didn't much care to have on his shoulders. He spent 5 years in a Bahamas governor post and then did nothing but vacation, party, and get paid for interviews for the rest of his life. Pretty much that, though he did put a bit of effort into the Bahamas. Of course, that didn't happen immediately and only lasted for a short spurt when he thought that George VI would call him back to England if he behaved. Part of the reason Edward was so popular as Prince of Wales was that he was everywhere. Edward VII was a partier, but Edward VIII was a partier in contrast to his father's rather staid and boring personality. Edward hated royal duties ("prince-ing" and after becoming monarch, "king-ing") but wasn't bad at them when motivated. Post-Bahamas, he happily lived the life of a celebrity and the two of them spent a lot of time in America, especially New York. Those around him had given up on him ever maturing, even when he was Prince of Wales, but held out optimism that it might happen one day. He and Wallis Simpson had a bizarre relationship. Wallis bossed him around and he loved that. She was not his first love. His three brightest flames were Freda Dudley-Ward, Thelma Furness and Simpson. Dudley-Ward was married and older than he, but was the longest lasting until Furness came along. Edward wasn't exactly loyal and at least with Dudley-Ward, there were several affairs. The relationship with Furness only lasted a couple of years and it was she who introduced Simpson to him. Besides George VI/Albert, there were three other brothers: George, Henry and John. John was epileptic and kept mostly away from the family before dying young. George was a drug addict, whom Edward really tried to help before dying during the war in a plane crash. Also, their mother, Queen Mary of Teck, was a klepto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:There's no doubt that a lot of royalty were hella into Fascism until Hitler started to lose ground. Well no, there is absolutely no evidence of this at all. The royal family from at least Victoria onwards were very much politically neutral, they were Not happy with what he was up to. Especially when he started hanging out with Oswald Mosley who was already considered a shithead by the aristocrats for stealing Bryan Guinness, 2nd Baron of Moyne's wife. Here's a fun fact. George the III was broke, flat broke. So he went to parliament and said ok, I've got these lands, tell you what I'll give you the land rent for them in exchange for you paying me a wage and clearing my debts. At the time they were not worth much money but parliament went k they might be worth money in the future so we will take a punt and you got yourself a deal. Over time that land became most of London and the land rent on it is now worth £400 million a year. The wage paid to the royal family is a fraction of that. Every monarch has had the right to go back on the deal but has chosen not to. You take the crown away and that deal goes bye bye and the Royals just get a lot richer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate Don't kid yourself, the Royals and the aristocrats are not our "leaders" just because of some divine birth right, they are our leaders because they legally own most of the land in our country. You take them and throw them in prison, confiscate their lands, then that's a revolution and there are no laws left to stop your neighbour from deciding he wants an extension and that your house looks ideal for that purpose. learnincurve has a new favorite as of 11:05 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
That's not how revolutions work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Don't kid yourself, the Royals and the aristocrats are not our "leaders" just because of some divine birth right, they are our leaders because they legally own most of the land in our country. You take them and throw them in prison, confiscate their lands, then that's a revolution and there are no laws left to stop your neighbour from deciding he wants an extension and that your house looks ideal for that purpose. It's worth noting that the legal system is ultimately at the behest of popular will, though. I agree with you in the sense that if you pushed it so far as to try and justify executing all the rich people and redistributing their property to the poor or something it would probably break down, but if there was enough popular support for simply abolishing a monarchy and turning over a lot of their property to state hands, it'd happen without the entire legal system breaking down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Don't kid yourself, the Royals and the aristocrats are not our "leaders" just because of some divine birth right, they are our leaders because they legally own most of the land in our country. You take them and throw them in prison, confiscate their lands, then that's a revolution and there are no laws left to stop your neighbour from deciding he wants an extension and that your house looks ideal for that purpose. So don’t take just take their land and throw them in prison. You could, for example, impose a an aggressive, progressive tax on real estate. They’d be forced to sell and downsize, but they wouldn’t end up in the poor house, or in gaol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Don't kid yourself, the Royals and the aristocrats are not our "leaders" just because of some divine birth right, they are our leaders because they legally own most of the land in our country. You take them and throw them in prison, confiscate their lands, then that's a revolution and there are no laws left to stop your neighbour from deciding he wants an extension and that your house looks ideal for that purpose. You're confusing a couple of different things here. The ultimate owner of all land in England, Scotland and Wales is the Crown. Everyone else just owns the right to use that land - this is what "granting an estate" actually is, it's granting the estate in land which makes you the owner. There's a few different forms this takes, but the two major ones are freeholds and leaseholds. Freeholders have an absolute right to the land they own an interest in - functionally it's no different to owning the land itself. Leaseholds are more or less the same, but time-limited - typical periods are stuff like 99 years - and there may be restrictions which wouldn't be imposed on a freeholder. Lots of flats are owned this way, with the freeholder owning the building and leasing out the units. There's also commonhold, in which all the flat owners also own the building itself collectively, but it's new and relatively rare. The important point for our purposes is that all of this is theoretically just a way of borrowing land from the Crown - but Lizzie can't just decide she fancies having 221B Baker Street back and demand the owner hand it over. The Crown has no actual rights to it, except in very limited circumstances which are in any case administered by Parliamentary bodies. Besides that, the Crown has a ton of land which it owns directly, which form the Crown Estates. There's also a bunch of aristocratic families who own huge amounts of stuff (especially big duchies like Cornwall and Westminster). The latter group still only have freeholds or long leases though - their estates have the same status in law as the house I own, except possibly if the freehold specifies something weird like an entailment. This generates a lot of wealth and power for them, both from rents and from exploitation - Charlie in Cornwall runs a shitload of forestry and farms and stuff, for example. Like almost all areas of English law, the Crown's ability to make use of any of this is limited. So what would change if we declared the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland tomorrow? Nothing, really. The first act of the Parliament of the UR would be to transfer ultimate land ownership to itself, as the sovereign body representing the people. The Crown Estates would be expropriated, but they're administered by Parliament anyway so that would be business as usual. Functionally, nothing much else would change. The rest of land law operates between freehold estates, the Crown isn't involved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
The precedent in that is that if the Crown and aristocratic land has the same legal status as your own house, what's to stop the government from doing it to everyone else? Yes government can appropriate land now, but it has to pay the owner the value of the land, so for it to be legal they would have to pay the royal family and all the land holding aristocrats for it and we simply don't have that sum of money in the treasury. You can't just throw them in prison, for a start they haven't committed any crime. What you are asking for is a revolution, and it won't be bloodless because the royal family are also head of the armed forces, and in real life that does have very real consequences. I'm not saying the distribution of land and wealth is right, Charles is a bit of a hippy and William is a good guy, maybe they will do the decent thing, but I suspect they won't Here's a fun one. in 2009 all the heads of state were to attend an event to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy. the official invite for the nation go to government and then they invite their representatives. Blair was invited and accepted and then "forgot" to invite the queen. In doing so he had declared himself the head of state, which is treason. The Army were actually planning on arresting him the moment he set foot in France. Luckily this was all avoided when Obama invited her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Blair was invited and accepted and then "forgot" to invite the queen. In doing so he had declared himself the head of state, which is treason. The Army were actually planning on arresting him the moment he set foot in France. Luckily this was all avoided when Obama invited her. Earning that Peace Prize.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Luckily this was all avoided when Obama invited her. So does that mean Obama legally acknowledged the Queen of England as the head of state for the United States?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:in 2009 all the heads of state were to attend an event to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy. the official invite for the nation go to government and then they invite their representatives. Blair was invited and accepted and then "forgot" to invite the queen. In doing so he had declared himself the head of state, which is treason. The Army were actually planning on arresting him the moment he set foot in France. Luckily this was all avoided when Obama invited her. ...why would the British Army arrest the PM in France? Why would they arrest their own head of government and literally stage a military coup (not to forget that for the arrest they would also have to invade France in the process) for the dire crime of not inviting the Queen to a party? Also not inviting someone is very much *not* the same as declaring yourself head of state. Where would you even find this nonsense? e: the commemoration of the Normandy landing took place in, you know, Normandy. Why would the American president invite the Queen to France instead of the actual host, who back then would have been Nicolas Sarkozy? I'm pretty sure this is not how international diplomatic etiquette works. System Metternich has a new favorite as of 13:51 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Here's a fun one. None of this is true
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:None of this is true But he wrote it down, that makes it history!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
ah yes, blair, noted for being the prime minister in 2009
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:None of this is true Some of it is. 2009 marked the 65th anniversary of the Normandy landings. There was a commemoration in Normandy and the Queen was not invited. Obama then worked with organizers to secure Her Majesty an invite, and it was reported that French officials said she was "welcome to attend". The initial outrage over her not being invited, outrage which a bit of cursory research shows to be mostly confined to the pages of the Daily Mail (and those bastards eat, sleep, and breathe outrage), was explained in several ways: French officials supposedly viewed it as a primarily "Franco-American" commemoration and had no plans to invite any British officials (but Gordon Brown - not Tony Blair - had been invited after expressing interest in attending). French officials also said that an official invitation had been extended to the British Government and that it was on Gordon Brown to invite who he saw fit, and that the failure to invite Her Majesty the Queen was his fault. It was also reported that Sarkozy did not want to invite the Queen, or alternately that he and his people were so focused on working with Obama that they just... forgot. It was further reported that the Queen and the rest of the royal family were not upset about the supposed snub and had no plans to attend the ceremony anyway, as they had not received an official invitation. I can't find anything about whether or not Obama was successful in securing her an invitation, or if she did go in the end, but there's absolutely nothing about Gordon Brown's failure to invite her being "treason" or "declaring himself the head of state" or the army planning to arrest him, because lol that's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
RC and Moon Pie posted:Also, their mother, Queen Mary of Teck, was a klepto. When she was visiting other people's houses and saw something she liked, she would gush about how wonderful it was and how it would look wonderful at her place and blah blah blah until, eventually, the owners sighed and asked, "Would you like to have it?" learnincurve posted:Well no, there is absolutely no evidence of this at all. The royal family from at least Victoria onwards were very much politically neutral, they were Not happy with what he was up to. Especially when he started hanging out with Oswald Mosley who was already considered a shithead by the aristocrats for stealing Bryan Guinness, 2nd Baron of Moyne's wife. One complaint about Prince Charles is that he doesn't present himself as politically neutral. He has many opinions about a lot of subjects and isn't afraid to voice them, which irritates the government. He also has said that when he's King he wants to be a "Defender of All Faiths" not just "Defender of the Faith".
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:The precedent in that is that if the Crown and aristocratic land has the same legal status as your own house, what's to stop the government from doing it to everyone else? Yes government can appropriate land now, but it has to pay the owner the value of the land, so for it to be legal they would have to pay the royal family and all the land holding aristocrats for it and we simply don't have that sum of money in the treasury. You can't just throw them in prison, for a start they haven't committed any crime. What you are asking for is a revolution, and it won't be bloodless because the royal family are also head of the armed forces, and in real life that does have very real consequences. I'm not saying the distribution of land and wealth is right, Charles is a bit of a hippy and William is a good guy, maybe they will do the decent thing, but I suspect they won't 1) "The government" and "Parliament" are different things. Sovereignty rests with Parliament, not the government - the government can't make laws or do anything else that Parliament doesn't approve and grant it the power to do. 2) Thanks to 1), Parliament is the determiner of what is and isn't legal, subject to some control via the judiciary. There are no theoretical limits on Parliament's power - the famous quote is that Parliament could pass a law requiring the murder of every blue-eyed child and it would be perfectly legal. In reality of course there's tons of limits on what Parliament can and can't do, but those are political and social more than they are legal, barring stuff like devolution. 3) The only way a republic is happening in the UK, short of the Water Wars breaking out and the whole thing falling over, is if a party manages to win an election with it in their manifesto. For such a gigantic constitutional change, they'd probably have to win in a landslide unprecedented in the post-war period. There'd be some sticky constitutional questions (technically Parliamentary power derives from the Crown in Parliament) but the pattern of the last few hundred years has been the stripping away of power from the Crown and its transfer to Parliament, primarily the House of Commons. Every monarch who's tried to challenge that has lost. As for the Queen being head of the armed forces and that having "very real consequences", bollocks. It's the Ministry of Defence which employs and pays them, and it's the Prime Minister who takes strategic decisions like "who should we declare war on" (although that power also looks like it's being absorbed by Parliament after the Iraq War). If we reach the stage that the armed forces enact a coup, we're in a much worse position than any where worrying about land laws would conceivably matter. As to the last bit, the Army can't arrest anyone (except military personnel who fall under the jurisdiction of courts-martial), especially not in France where the French would more than likely object.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Corrode posted:As for the Queen being head of the armed forces and that having "very real consequences", bollocks. It's the Ministry of Defence which employs and pays them, and it's the Prime Minister who takes strategic decisions like "who should we declare war on" (although that power also looks like it's being absorbed by Parliament after the Iraq War). If we reach the stage that the armed forces enact a coup, we're in a much worse position than any where worrying about land laws would conceivably matter. Yeah, and in the case of the Army (which is the branch that would most likely be carrying out the 'very real consequences' in this far-fetched scenario) its very existence is entirely at the consent of Parliament. On paper the Army doesn't so much exist as a single institution but as a series of self-contained mini-armies - the regiments which historically were raised from specific areas by aristos as part of their duty to to the monarch in return for their title and position. The monarch would raise these armies when needed and pay for them themselves. It was personally paying for an almost continuously active army that played a major part in bankrupting George III, as mentioned above, which led to his financial responsibilities being transferred to the government, under the control of parliament. Parliament still has to regularly agree to renew the Armed Forces Act which permits the Army to exist in peacetime - this is also one of those weird British checks-and-balances things as the Army exists at the will of parliament and, equally, parliament has to exist for the Army to exist. This is why the Army isn't the 'Royal Army' - various regiments and other bits of it have royal warrants but not the insitution as a whole. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are, on paper, the monarch's personal property (hence 'Her Majesty's Ship such-and-such'). But since George III's financial dealings with parliament the RN and RAF are funded by the government as agreed by parliament. Yes, Liz II is Commander-in-Chief and all service personell have to swear an oath of loyalty to her and her heirs but their pay and equipment is supplied by the government. It's another one of those checks-and-balances : Parliament doesn't have the ultimate legal power over the armed forces but it has all the practical power. HMQ has all the legal power but none of the practical power. Neither can really do anything with the armed forces without the cooperation (however much of a legal technicality it is) of the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
That's similar to America's army in some ways, isn't it? The President is Commander in Chief but can't declare war without Congress yet Congress can declare without the President. How much actual leading have Presidents done since WW2? Roosevelt was heavily involved in WW2; was it mostly just diplomacy and choosing which Generals?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Elyv posted:From what I remember, the latter, except ancient history being what it is the document probably existed at some point and got wet or eaten by rats or burned or something. Ancient history? Some telemetry data from the Apollo missions, which we haven't even finished studying, has been lost forever because the tapes were erased and reused. Even when we save absolutely everything (e.g. the remaining Apollo telemetry), we have no good way to know what was saved, and where. Who knows if we'll still have the means (e.g. tape readers, the original software or at least the data format documentation, etc.) to read the data when we need it
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:That's similar to America's army in some ways, isn't it? The President is Commander in Chief but can't declare war without Congress yet Congress can declare without the President. How much actual leading have Presidents done since WW2? Roosevelt was heavily involved in WW2; was it mostly just diplomacy and choosing which Generals? It depends upon what you mean by "leading". Certainly no sitting president marched with their army and directed sieges the way Roman emperors or medieval monarchs supposedly did. But LBJ personally selected bombing targets during the Vietnam War, and Bush/Obama were heavily involved in determining which terrorist leaders to go after and approving the plans; Obama didn't design the plan for the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, but he told the generals that getting OBL was a priority, and gave the go-ahead when the plan was presented to him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:It depends upon what you mean by "leading". Certainly no sitting president marched with their army and directed sieges the way Roman emperors or medieval monarchs supposedly did. But LBJ personally selected bombing targets during the Vietnam War, and Bush/Obama were heavily involved in determining which terrorist leaders to go after and approving the plans; Obama didn't design the plan for the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, but he told the generals that getting OBL was a priority, and gave the go-ahead when the plan was presented to him. I'm pretty sure George Washington led some armies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
I figured no one had actually lead an army in a long time, if ever. I guessed most of it was similar to Obama and Bush; LBJ picking specific targets is not what I expected.Rutibex posted:I'm pretty sure George Washington led some armies. Not while or after he was President, I don't think. Or was he involved in that one small insurgency after the Revolutionary War? I forgot the name of it and can't remember if it was during or after he was President. I read a biography years ago and recall him having to squeeze into his old uniform for something. Admiral Joeslop has a new favorite as of 17:37 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:35
|
|