Talk:William Wallace/@comment-25274427-20140616002046/@comment-4998540-20140616033648

"As you said, you know nothing of William Wallace and what he represents.

Washington Vs. Bush would've been fine because it IS 'murican and not masquerading as 'revolutionary leaders.' I'll let you in on a secret... revolutionary leaders do not like Washington at all. He represents something completely different... he didn't fight for freedom, he fought for control. He hardly led a ragtag bunch of underdogs... he led the largest, wealthiest, most powerful country in the world. It was hardly a rebellion; it was the establishment of a new world order.

I just asked some friends what they thought of this match up (none of us are 'muricans), and they said it was "no good, even offensive." Not every one thinks like you (Thank God)."



So what you're saying is you'd be fine with a battle that's American vs American, but not American vs the oh so rare non-American? And it WAS a revolution. America wasn't powerful, they had a weak army. They lost a lot of battles until the French started helping. If anyone in that battle was the largest and wealthiest, it would be, and was, the British.



Plus which part of Wallace vs George Washington is racist? The part about Britiain? And stop calling us "'muricans". It shows ignorance.