American generals are finally free!!!
in Close to Politics ·
Why's he acting so lazy about it? Kind of felt like he was actually bummed out that they're free now...
Didn't he say that America made all the wrong calls back in the 90s? 🙂
118 posts shown.
Why's he acting so lazy about it? Kind of felt like he was actually bummed out that they're free now...
Justin Green said:Hey. I'm mostly into rock stuff where the guitar solos actually matter, you know? Like Guns N' Roses, Uriah Heep, Hallen... Satriani and that kind of vibe. If anyone knows some other good bands, let me know. Just emphasizing ROCK—not metal groups. Any recs?
A five-year-old kid could be pretty traumatized if he loses his dad early on and grows up without him, especially if he's stuck with a super dominant mother.
Maybe that’s why someone ends up turning gay later.
Jason Morales88 said:just downloaded the album, it's FIRE!
vividorca5 said:Don't get it twisted—to me, NKOTB are basically Mozart😉 compared to all the mainstream garbage we've been fed over the last 15 years. But still... you've got those damn Stock, Aitken and Waterman producers, the whole house movement, and lol, Madonna, who just killed off any real songwriting or creativity back in the eighties. And what even is Radiohead?
Jason Morales88 said:I've got their whole discography. When's the new one coming out? What's the title?
amberbison18 said:I tried to dig up a bit more info on the individuals you mentioned.In 1942 five archbishops and bishops in the southern (unoccupied) part of France protested against the violation of human rights caused by the rounding up of the Jews. They were Archbishop Saliege of Toulouse; Bishop Theas of Montauban; Cardinal Gerlier of Lyons; Archbishop Moussaron of Albi; and Bishop Daly of Marseilles. Within the occupied zone, Bishop Vansteenberghe of Bayonne published a protest on the front page of his diocesan newsletter Sept. 20, 1942
In the unoccupied region, five bishops spoke out against the raids on the Jews. A bishop in the occupied part of France did the exact same thing.
I truly respect them for that.
Stepinac was quite explicit in his positions:He was just as resolute in a sermon delivered on March 14, 1943. Standing against racist theories and actions, he emphasized the dignity of every human person and the inalienable rights derived from it. "Every person, regardless of their race or nationality, whether they graduated from a university in a cultured center of Europe or hunt for food in the jungles of Africa, carries within them the seal of God the Creator and possesses inalienable rights that no human authority may arbitrarily take or limit." (cit. p. 304)
I can agree that he could have done more. I suppose anyone who didn't pick up a rifle could have done more. But we've found that among those who didn't take up arms, very few dared to say as much as, or even more than, Stepinac did.
In your earlier posts, you mentioned some historians you consider reputable and expert regarding modern history. Do you recall what those reputable and expert historians had to say about Stepinac before 1990? At best, they barely mentioned him. Meanwhile, there were plenty of reputable and expert historians who spoke of Stepinac as a criminal. They are still among us today, and they are still considered experts and authorities.
Casey Robinson2 said:A group of authors put together a textbook regarding the American Civil War intended for elementary schools. In this version, they stop short of calling Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm "liberating actions"—and now critics are pointing out that after finishing the book, you're left completely clueless about who was actually attacking whom during the war.
The authors are defending themselves by claiming their only intention was to give students a look at the same events through multiple perspectives.
I honestly find myself wondering what drives people to cling so desperately to this policy of moral equivalence. What exactly is their end goal here?