Umm it's a tomb, no one is buried in a tomb. Also, we say nice things about Lee in the north why wouldn't the south say nice things about Grant. Sherman I can understand but grant was the one general Lee actually respected from the north.
I think Lee had some respect for some of the lower generals in the Union Army. But yes, he did have respect for Grant. You're not serious about the tomb point. I hope.
Don't you have to be below ground to be buried? You can have a buriel in a tomb but since they are above ground you are entombed not buried. right?
My Webster's says you can be buried in a tomb. I understand your point, but there's also the definition of "bury" that includes AS IF in the earth, enough to include a tomb. I was in any event referring to the old joke, which as I recall does use the term "buried".
Which is even more fuel against Bush. Turns out No WMDs and no link to 9/11,and now having to rebuild is costly beyond repair...for the rest of us. Haliburton and other contractors will certainly never complain though.Unfortunately for all of us serfs,things that happen are never for the reasons were told. We just have to take care of the check . When things are that corrupt,it's hard to really lay the blame on any one man.
Big Blockhead, Earlier in this very thread we established your difficulty in acknowledging facts presented by others. Some of the articles you provided and cited as a source of facts were mostly opinion pieces with unsubstantiated conclusions. Your failure to acknowledge that Grant was a bad president in spite of overwhelming evidence after your attempt to make a contrary position would seem to indicate that you thought he was a good president. Also, my post to Johnny English was meant in part as an insult to you. Much like your insults aimed at me in the above post it does not seem that it is necessary to gather one's facts to hurl insults or call names. However, you have now called me a liar multiple times based upon your confusion between a conclusion based upon an inferrence of your statements used to make a clever sleight against you and an outright lie. Some heroes like George Washington do nothing to tarnish the reputation that they built for themselves in battle. Others like Grant made very bad decisions later in life that cast a large shadow on the reputation they had previously created for themselves. The Grant administration was easily one of the most corrupt in our nation's history. When looking at his entire career as a public servant in war and in politics it is not so clear that Grant should be regarded as one of our greatest heroes despite the enormity of his accomplishments on the battlefield. Much like a petulant child you seem to think that if you repeat your opinions often enough that others will accept them as truth. Until you can give and take ground based upon evidence provided by yourself and others there isn't much use in trying to take you seriously.
Ours is higher than yours:smile: Our homicide rate is lower:smile: Gold Medals are way higher with much less population:smile: We have better weather and hotter chicks No French here, apart from hot topless ones at the beach
Your homicide rate is lower? I stated a stat earlier how the state of California has double the homicides Canada as a country has in a year.
Yeah, you were sprouting off about how good Canada is in various criteria. I was just pointing our that we are better.
Not sure where swifty gets his data but according to the experts at wikipedia, Canuckistan has less than 1/3 the homicide rate of California. So it isn't all bad (...compared to California)
lol..1 canadian=1/4 of an american, by the nicest of estimates. 1 speedo wearing, queen praising, american hating briton=1/6
ok, what do we have here? A single example of my being wrong about a factual assertion? Nope. A statement that since I disputed that Grant was one of the worst presidents means Hasty said I felt he was a good one, despite my never having said that? Yep. A statement that he lied about that to insult me? Yep, too. "confusion between a conclusion based upon an inferrence of your statements used to make a clever sleight against you and an outright lie." Good may be the opposite of bad, but it is hardly the only alternative category. Indifferent, even merely not awful, are also available. No clever sleight. No proper inference. All that is left is the outright lie. Yep. Let's face it, you were arguing with me about Grant. I assume (here's my clever inference) that when you grew up you were told the Civil War was really the War of Northern Aggression, that Grant was not a hero in that War, that Reconstruction was a terrible and undeserved burden put on those wonderful people down South, and all you know about him is the scandals concededly perpetrated by people in his administration and not him personally. You got frustrated. So you overplayed your hand and said I had said something I did not. Now having called you on it you attempt to excuse yourself by calling it an inference used to make "a clever sleight". Are you gay? I am asking since what you did there seems awfully gay.
