Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on June 11, 2026, 01:05:18 PM

Title: Political History
Post by: Dos Equis on June 11, 2026, 01:05:18 PM
Cool story.

John Adams proposes a Continental Army
HISTORY.com Editors
Published: November 13, 2009
Last Updated: May 28, 2025

On June 10, 1775, John Adams proposes to Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, that the men laying siege to Boston should be considered a Continental Army led by a general.

The men who had armed themselves and rushed to surround British forces in Boston following the Battle of Lexington and Concord were overwhelmingly from New England. However, John Adams, representing Massachusetts, realized that the military effort would only succeed if the British thought the colonies were united. To this end, Adams suggested the appointment of a Virginian, George Washington, to command the Continental forces, despite the fact that New Englanders were used to fighting in local militias under officers elected from among their own ranks.

On June 15, Adams formally nominated George Washington as commander in chief of the Continental Army; Washington accepted the post the next day. On June 17, the newly named army fought the Battle of Bunker Hill, as John Adam’s wife, Abigail, and son, John Quincy, watched from their hometown of Braintree.

Just as the British had discovered the difficulties of waging war with obstreperous Yankees for soldiers during the Seven Years’ War, Washington, the Virginia planter-cum-soldier, was unimpressed upon meeting his supposed army. Just as the British had, he saw “stupidity” among the enlisted men, who were used to the easy familiarity of being commanded by neighbors. Washington promptly insisted that the officers behave with decorum and the enlisted men with deference. Although he enjoyed some success with this original army, the New Englanders went home to their farms at the end of 1775, and General Washington had to start fresh with new recruits in 1776.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/june-10/john-adams-proposes-a-continental-army
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: IroNat on June 11, 2026, 01:26:55 PM
Twas not all wine and roses like taught in school.
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: chaos on June 11, 2026, 08:26:15 PM
Twas not all wine and roses like taught in school.
There was also turkey and mashed potatoes. :P
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: Humble Narcissist on June 12, 2026, 06:08:10 AM
There was very little training as we know it for even the British army. You joined and got a uniform and rifle. There were very few if any live firing exercises as too much waste of ammo.
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: Dos Equis on June 15, 2026, 09:12:34 PM
I knew this.  :)

A president held a fight at the White House before. He was partially blinded.
President Donald Trump has erected a 5,000-seat arena on the South Lawn to host a UFC fight.
https://archive.ph/HuDYG#selection-295.0-299.92
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: Primemuscle on June 16, 2026, 02:48:54 PM
I knew this.  :)

A president held a fight at the White House before. He was partially blinded.
President Donald Trump has erected a 5,000-seat arena on the South Lawn to host a UFC fight.
https://archive.ph/HuDYG#selection-295.0-299.92

Theodore Roosevelt had a boxing ring built in the Whitehouse basement... not on the Whitehouse's south (back) lawn where Trump had "the claw", an enormous eyesore erected. Thank goodness this was only a temporary structure and is already being dismantled. But hey, at least Trump didn't lose vision in one eye during a sparring match.
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: chaos on June 16, 2026, 02:54:07 PM
An ornamental decoration is offensive to liberals but a bunch of faggots and trannies with their tops off, shaking their bolt on tits and chopped off dicks around while desecrating the White House with some weirdo faggy flags is totally acceptable.

This sums up the difference between left and right, right and wrong, moral and immoral.
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: Primemuscle on June 16, 2026, 03:07:27 PM
An ornamental decoration is offensive to liberals but a bunch of faggots and trannies with their tops off, shaking their bolt on tits and chopped off dicks around while desecrating the White House with some weirdo faggy flags is totally acceptable.

This sums up the difference between left and right, right and wrong, moral and immoral.

I don't find any tacky classless demonstration at or in front of the Whitehouse acceptable. Speak for yourself, do not speak for people who you obviously do not know.

Typical for you, your defense for the actions of one person or group is to point out another person of group's folly. As if to say one stupid thing justifies another. Like a child caught doing something wrong, you holler, but they did it first.
 
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: chaos on June 16, 2026, 05:04:04 PM
I don't find any tacky classless demonstration at or in front of the Whitehouse acceptable. Speak for yourself, do not speak for people who you obviously do not know.

Typical for you, your defense for the actions of one person or group is to point out another person of group's folly. As if to say one stupid thing justifies another. Like a child caught doing something wrong, you holler, but they did it first.
Right out of the whiny bitch ass liberal play book.
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: Primemuscle on June 16, 2026, 07:10:03 PM
Right out of the whiny bitch ass liberal play book.

Telling it like it is, is not being whiny. You complain excessively about liberals. This is being whiny to the extreme.
Title: Re: Political History
Post by: chaos on June 16, 2026, 07:14:53 PM
Telling it like it is,
Yeah, whiny liberal bitch.