We did those runs in our boon dockers, too. You accent every other right foot, so they wear unevenly, too. I miss those days. I weighted 180 pounds when I got outta bootcamp, and I whipped out 30 pushups on a bet the other night.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Stepping on a lot of toes
- Thread starter robt.k.fall
- Start date
We did those runs in our boon dockers, too. You accent every other right foot, so they wear unevenly, too. I miss those days. I weighted 180 pounds when I got outta bootcamp, and I whipped out 30 pushups on a bet the other night.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
I was 6-0 and 195 without varying more than two or three pounds for my entire 20 years' service. One year after I was out, I weighed 215. That's when I decided I needed to discipline myself with on of my old 20-mile runs with full pack, like I used to hand out to enlisted that ticked me off. :laugh: :tongue3:
Try doing that in your 50's.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Well, I'm 61, so ... Uh ... nah, I'll pass. :laugh:
Five with no pack is my limit these days, if I'm not riding my bike about 15 or 20. My knees don't like running anymore. They made a terrorist threat against me if I didn't stop the every-day routine. :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
I lost 30 pounds a few years ago, and have been pretty consistent at 190. I can still do pushups, and I retired from division 1-A softball last year, at 51. All of my fat, divorced friends could have used boot camp, I think it does a world of good, and sets up a lifetime of good attitude towards how you want to feel, and look. I can't do anything about bald, but I refuse to be fat.
Taken last week, notice the svelteness, even with thermal undies.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
... and a baggy coat. :laugh:
Taken last week, notice the svelteness, even with thermal undies.
All right, all right! I've a feeling you don't carry a Dunlop (waiting to be asked, "Huh ... ???) so I'll give ya that one. You must live where that face fur is a necessity.
Dunlop ? Mine's a Springfield Armory.
[/lightbulb]Oh….you mean spare tire ? LOL
[/lightbulb]Oh….you mean spare tire ? LOL
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Yep, that'd be what I mean. :laugh:
They deny slavery caused the civil war over and over and then object to me pointing out that the denial is a racist myth.
Absolutely no links have been posted that demonstrate the civil war was not caused by slavery. The succession statements clearly indicate the reason for secession was the issue of slavery, specifically the preservation of the right of the state to allow slavery.
Has anything been offered to question that slavery was the root cause of the civil war? Nope. For example, folks fighting because of a federal versus national mindset, were motivated by the state secession over slavery.
Slavery as practiced in the south is condemned in scripture as violating the do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you want to be kidnapped chained transported in the same place you urinate and defecate? The very idea someone would defend slavery as practiced in the south is repulsive and heinous. And to use sleight of hand switching the slavery addressed in scripture with the slavery practiced in the South is disgusting, vulgar and putrid
Absolutely no links have been posted that demonstrate the civil war was not caused by slavery. The succession statements clearly indicate the reason for secession was the issue of slavery, specifically the preservation of the right of the state to allow slavery.
Has anything been offered to question that slavery was the root cause of the civil war? Nope. For example, folks fighting because of a federal versus national mindset, were motivated by the state secession over slavery.
Slavery as practiced in the south is condemned in scripture as violating the do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you want to be kidnapped chained transported in the same place you urinate and defecate? The very idea someone would defend slavery as practiced in the south is repulsive and heinous. And to use sleight of hand switching the slavery addressed in scripture with the slavery practiced in the South is disgusting, vulgar and putrid
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
That belongs to Johnny ... er, I mean, Van.
For the last time, VAN, who supports slavery ?
saturneptune
New Member
Just a few observations without the quotes to point at an individual. Two questions come to mind are, how many of the posters have ever been slaves, and how many of the posters ever served in combat? I know some have on the last one.
Without getting into a long drawn out debate about the causes of the Civil War in particular, I can tell you this from observation. I grew up in Gulfport, MS during the 50s and 60s, and from the way I saw African Americans treated on a regular basis, had I been of age when that war broke out, I would have fought for the union.
Without getting into a long drawn out debate about the causes of the Civil War in particular, I can tell you this from observation. I grew up in Gulfport, MS during the 50s and 60s, and from the way I saw African Americans treated on a regular basis, had I been of age when that war broke out, I would have fought for the union.
And seeing how they were treated in New England, I would say they got took.
Thanks S/N. I never served in combat, but I served and the Army could have sent me to the combat zone, but chose to send me far from danger.
As an enlisted member of the Army, I was enslaved, and not free. I slept where I was told, ate what I was told, did what I was told, and so forth. Let's leave it that I value freedom, and fully embrace the Biblical doctrine that freedom is better than slavery.
Slavery was the cause of the civil war, and slavery as practiced in the south was a crime against humanity. Those that took us into war to preserve the slavery practiced in the south rank among the most evil leaders in American history.
As an enlisted member of the Army, I was enslaved, and not free. I slept where I was told, ate what I was told, did what I was told, and so forth. Let's leave it that I value freedom, and fully embrace the Biblical doctrine that freedom is better than slavery.
Slavery was the cause of the civil war, and slavery as practiced in the south was a crime against humanity. Those that took us into war to preserve the slavery practiced in the south rank among the most evil leaders in American history.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Sherman was a barbarian! Truman saved millions of lives through the use of the bomb. My brother was slated for the invasion of Japan. Those people would still be fighting unless the Emperor had told them to quit. i hope people in this country would fight an invader to the death but we are welcoming them from south of the border cause they work cheap!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
How the blacks were and are treated in Yankee land!
For one to assert that slavery as practiced in the Old South was the one and only cause of our "War Between the States" (or, as some prefer to call it, "The War of Northern Aggression"!) will result in a failure to consider other very important aspects of American society both before and after the so-call "Civil[?] War."
This is not to say that some of the slaves in the Deep South were severely mistreated because they were. However, OTOH, many slaves were not "field hands." Many were "domestic servants" who were in some cases considered to be actual members of their "Slave-holder's Families."
Many of the original Black people from sub-Saharan Africa were not even slaves at all. They were more like "indentured servants" who were apprenticed to either plantation owners or other craftsmen who needed "extra hands" to assist them in whatever trade they practiced.
These "indentured servants" often lived with their "owner's" families, and some were even given in marriage to their "owner's" sons or daughters. Moreover, when armed conflicts did arise, these "indentured servants" often fought side-by-side with their "White 'Owners.'"
One also needs to keep in mind that many Northern families were also slaveholders--a fact that's often conveniently omitted in many history textbooks.
From our nation's early beginnings, the concept that the individual States had inherent rights and authorities that superceded those of the national government was quite evident in the writings of Presidents Jefferson and Madison respectively titled the Virginia and the Kentucky "Resolutions."
Moreover, the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment (often referred to as "The States' Rights Amendment") to our US Constitution's "Bill of Rights" (i.e., the first 10 Amendments) was very crucial to that document's ratification in many Northern AND Southern States.
Then, too, many states had to assume various burdens such as self-defense from foreign invaders that most folks today would consider to be something that our national government should have handled.
Also, to claim that President Lincoln was "The Great Emancipator" is to ignore the fact that he did little or nothing to truly "emancipate" the slaves that he actually had the authority to do so as soon as he assumed the Presidency in April, 1861.
Then, too, President Lincoln also practiced many other deeds that were directly in violation of our nation's Constitution's "Bill of Rights" (i.e., its first 10 Amendments).
The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" wasn't issued until some three years until our "Civil[?] War," and it only really, as some historians point out, "freed what slaves he couldn't [i.e., those living in areas outside the control of the US {i.e., "the 'Union's' military forces}], while doing nothing to free the slaves that he could [i.e., those slaves living in areas that were under the control of the US {i.e., the 'Union's' military forces}]!!
In reality, it wasn't President Lincoln at all that supposedly "freed" the slaves. Rather, it was the 13th Amendment to our Constitution that wasn't ratified until December, 1865--almost a year and a half after Lincoln died from being hit by an assassin's bullet.
Moreover, to assert that the seceding Southern States were quite willing to return to the "Union" is to ignore other historical facts.
In reality, it was only because President-Elect Rutherford B. Hayes grudgingly agreed to end the era of "Southern Reconstructionism" in 1877 (some 12 years after the surrender of the Confederate forces under Gen. Robert E. Lee's command to "Union" Army's commanding general Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, VA).
Would an "Independent Southern States' Nation" have prevented some of the future events that some posters in this thread appear to claim that it would have?
I, for one, cannot say with any degree to certainty that it either would or wouldn't.
For my part, "Yours Truly" will leave that up to others who (apparently) have been given some sort of "prophetical insight" that I haven't been given.
This is not to say that some of the slaves in the Deep South were severely mistreated because they were. However, OTOH, many slaves were not "field hands." Many were "domestic servants" who were in some cases considered to be actual members of their "Slave-holder's Families."
Many of the original Black people from sub-Saharan Africa were not even slaves at all. They were more like "indentured servants" who were apprenticed to either plantation owners or other craftsmen who needed "extra hands" to assist them in whatever trade they practiced.
These "indentured servants" often lived with their "owner's" families, and some were even given in marriage to their "owner's" sons or daughters. Moreover, when armed conflicts did arise, these "indentured servants" often fought side-by-side with their "White 'Owners.'"
One also needs to keep in mind that many Northern families were also slaveholders--a fact that's often conveniently omitted in many history textbooks.
From our nation's early beginnings, the concept that the individual States had inherent rights and authorities that superceded those of the national government was quite evident in the writings of Presidents Jefferson and Madison respectively titled the Virginia and the Kentucky "Resolutions."
Moreover, the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment (often referred to as "The States' Rights Amendment") to our US Constitution's "Bill of Rights" (i.e., the first 10 Amendments) was very crucial to that document's ratification in many Northern AND Southern States.
Then, too, many states had to assume various burdens such as self-defense from foreign invaders that most folks today would consider to be something that our national government should have handled.
Also, to claim that President Lincoln was "The Great Emancipator" is to ignore the fact that he did little or nothing to truly "emancipate" the slaves that he actually had the authority to do so as soon as he assumed the Presidency in April, 1861.
Then, too, President Lincoln also practiced many other deeds that were directly in violation of our nation's Constitution's "Bill of Rights" (i.e., its first 10 Amendments).
The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" wasn't issued until some three years until our "Civil[?] War," and it only really, as some historians point out, "freed what slaves he couldn't [i.e., those living in areas outside the control of the US {i.e., "the 'Union's' military forces}], while doing nothing to free the slaves that he could [i.e., those slaves living in areas that were under the control of the US {i.e., the 'Union's' military forces}]!!
In reality, it wasn't President Lincoln at all that supposedly "freed" the slaves. Rather, it was the 13th Amendment to our Constitution that wasn't ratified until December, 1865--almost a year and a half after Lincoln died from being hit by an assassin's bullet.
Moreover, to assert that the seceding Southern States were quite willing to return to the "Union" is to ignore other historical facts.
In reality, it was only because President-Elect Rutherford B. Hayes grudgingly agreed to end the era of "Southern Reconstructionism" in 1877 (some 12 years after the surrender of the Confederate forces under Gen. Robert E. Lee's command to "Union" Army's commanding general Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, VA).
Would an "Independent Southern States' Nation" have prevented some of the future events that some posters in this thread appear to claim that it would have?
I, for one, cannot say with any degree to certainty that it either would or wouldn't.
For my part, "Yours Truly" will leave that up to others who (apparently) have been given some sort of "prophetical insight" that I haven't been given.
Speaking of root causes:
The root cause of everything bad is our own depravity. "all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God; there are none righteous, not one".
"The love of money is the root of all evil" pretty well sums up the situation on all sides in every conflict all through history, even today.
Re: those endentured servants--we still have them on welfare--with the taxpayers being the endentured. We, the stockholders forced the merchants to move many of the sweatshops overseas--now China has the company store. What shall we call that? Global greed/exploitation of the masses. As a country we are bankrupt and have not a clue as to why nor what to do about it. Now what? Tax the rich and famous.
Scripture says in Jesus there are no more: Jew/Greek, male/female, bond/free. We are still stumbling on all three of these.
Why are there those still fighting a Civil War? It is over. The South lost. Get over it.
It is long past time to repent. Only Jesus can fix our problem.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
The root cause of everything bad is our own depravity. "all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God; there are none righteous, not one".
"The love of money is the root of all evil" pretty well sums up the situation on all sides in every conflict all through history, even today.
Re: those endentured servants--we still have them on welfare--with the taxpayers being the endentured. We, the stockholders forced the merchants to move many of the sweatshops overseas--now China has the company store. What shall we call that? Global greed/exploitation of the masses. As a country we are bankrupt and have not a clue as to why nor what to do about it. Now what? Tax the rich and famous.
Scripture says in Jesus there are no more: Jew/Greek, male/female, bond/free. We are still stumbling on all three of these.
Why are there those still fighting a Civil War? It is over. The South lost. Get over it.
It is long past time to repent. Only Jesus can fix our problem.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator: