Boycott Gettysburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>
> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
> 140 years ago.
>
> Mike
Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this country
refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings aside, we
were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time. In
Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there are
less and less patrons watching.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>
> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
> 140 years ago.
>
> Mike
Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this country
refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings aside, we
were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time. In
Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there are
less and less patrons watching.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:XeednUq0y6coHVDZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>
>> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
>> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
>> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
>> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>>
>> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
>> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
>> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
>> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
>> 140 years ago.
>>
>> Mike
> Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this
> country refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings
> aside, we were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time.
> In Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there
> are less and less patrons watching.
>
I also don't want to go far with this, but it was citizens of two countries
killing each other to determine whether they would be two countries or one.
As our second revolution, it is an interesting time in history. Not
fascinating IMHO, but interesting.
Many people (especially in the South) call it the "War Between the States"
and some call it the "War of Northern Aggression." I don't get worked up
over it myself - I call it the Civil War out of convenience - but for more
than a few people the conflict isn't resolved.
War isn't about killing, but about control. All those people who died at
Gettysburg would be just as dead now in any event, but at stake was the
future of the countries at war. One fell, and the other claimed the
territory.
Mike
news:XeednUq0y6coHVDZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>
>> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
>> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
>> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
>> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>>
>> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
>> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
>> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
>> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
>> 140 years ago.
>>
>> Mike
> Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this
> country refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings
> aside, we were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time.
> In Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there
> are less and less patrons watching.
>
I also don't want to go far with this, but it was citizens of two countries
killing each other to determine whether they would be two countries or one.
As our second revolution, it is an interesting time in history. Not
fascinating IMHO, but interesting.
Many people (especially in the South) call it the "War Between the States"
and some call it the "War of Northern Aggression." I don't get worked up
over it myself - I call it the Civil War out of convenience - but for more
than a few people the conflict isn't resolved.
War isn't about killing, but about control. All those people who died at
Gettysburg would be just as dead now in any event, but at stake was the
future of the countries at war. One fell, and the other claimed the
territory.
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:XeednUq0y6coHVDZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>
>> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
>> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
>> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
>> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>>
>> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
>> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
>> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
>> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
>> 140 years ago.
>>
>> Mike
> Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this
> country refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings
> aside, we were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time.
> In Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there
> are less and less patrons watching.
>
I also don't want to go far with this, but it was citizens of two countries
killing each other to determine whether they would be two countries or one.
As our second revolution, it is an interesting time in history. Not
fascinating IMHO, but interesting.
Many people (especially in the South) call it the "War Between the States"
and some call it the "War of Northern Aggression." I don't get worked up
over it myself - I call it the Civil War out of convenience - but for more
than a few people the conflict isn't resolved.
War isn't about killing, but about control. All those people who died at
Gettysburg would be just as dead now in any event, but at stake was the
future of the countries at war. One fell, and the other claimed the
territory.
Mike
news:XeednUq0y6coHVDZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>
>> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
>> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
>> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
>> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>>
>> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
>> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
>> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
>> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
>> 140 years ago.
>>
>> Mike
> Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this
> country refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings
> aside, we were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time.
> In Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there
> are less and less patrons watching.
>
I also don't want to go far with this, but it was citizens of two countries
killing each other to determine whether they would be two countries or one.
As our second revolution, it is an interesting time in history. Not
fascinating IMHO, but interesting.
Many people (especially in the South) call it the "War Between the States"
and some call it the "War of Northern Aggression." I don't get worked up
over it myself - I call it the Civil War out of convenience - but for more
than a few people the conflict isn't resolved.
War isn't about killing, but about control. All those people who died at
Gettysburg would be just as dead now in any event, but at stake was the
future of the countries at war. One fell, and the other claimed the
territory.
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:XeednUq0y6coHVDZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>
>> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
>> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
>> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
>> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>>
>> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
>> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
>> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
>> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
>> 140 years ago.
>>
>> Mike
> Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this
> country refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings
> aside, we were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time.
> In Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there
> are less and less patrons watching.
>
I also don't want to go far with this, but it was citizens of two countries
killing each other to determine whether they would be two countries or one.
As our second revolution, it is an interesting time in history. Not
fascinating IMHO, but interesting.
Many people (especially in the South) call it the "War Between the States"
and some call it the "War of Northern Aggression." I don't get worked up
over it myself - I call it the Civil War out of convenience - but for more
than a few people the conflict isn't resolved.
War isn't about killing, but about control. All those people who died at
Gettysburg would be just as dead now in any event, but at stake was the
future of the countries at war. One fell, and the other claimed the
territory.
Mike
news:XeednUq0y6coHVDZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>
>> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
>> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
>> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
>> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>>
>> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
>> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
>> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
>> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
>> 140 years ago.
>>
>> Mike
> Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this
> country refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings
> aside, we were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time.
> In Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there
> are less and less patrons watching.
>
I also don't want to go far with this, but it was citizens of two countries
killing each other to determine whether they would be two countries or one.
As our second revolution, it is an interesting time in history. Not
fascinating IMHO, but interesting.
Many people (especially in the South) call it the "War Between the States"
and some call it the "War of Northern Aggression." I don't get worked up
over it myself - I call it the Civil War out of convenience - but for more
than a few people the conflict isn't resolved.
War isn't about killing, but about control. All those people who died at
Gettysburg would be just as dead now in any event, but at stake was the
future of the countries at war. One fell, and the other claimed the
territory.
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:XeednUq0y6coHVDZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>
>> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
>> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
>> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
>> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>>
>> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
>> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
>> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
>> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
>> 140 years ago.
>>
>> Mike
> Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this
> country refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings
> aside, we were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time.
> In Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there
> are less and less patrons watching.
>
I also don't want to go far with this, but it was citizens of two countries
killing each other to determine whether they would be two countries or one.
As our second revolution, it is an interesting time in history. Not
fascinating IMHO, but interesting.
Many people (especially in the South) call it the "War Between the States"
and some call it the "War of Northern Aggression." I don't get worked up
over it myself - I call it the Civil War out of convenience - but for more
than a few people the conflict isn't resolved.
War isn't about killing, but about control. All those people who died at
Gettysburg would be just as dead now in any event, but at stake was the
future of the countries at war. One fell, and the other claimed the
territory.
Mike
news:XeednUq0y6coHVDZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>
>> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
>> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
>> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
>> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>>
>> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
>> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
>> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
>> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
>> 140 years ago.
>>
>> Mike
> Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this
> country refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings
> aside, we were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time.
> In Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there
> are less and less patrons watching.
>
I also don't want to go far with this, but it was citizens of two countries
killing each other to determine whether they would be two countries or one.
As our second revolution, it is an interesting time in history. Not
fascinating IMHO, but interesting.
Many people (especially in the South) call it the "War Between the States"
and some call it the "War of Northern Aggression." I don't get worked up
over it myself - I call it the Civil War out of convenience - but for more
than a few people the conflict isn't resolved.
War isn't about killing, but about control. All those people who died at
Gettysburg would be just as dead now in any event, but at stake was the
future of the countries at war. One fell, and the other claimed the
territory.
Mike
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
