- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Sorry, literally not true.Almost no Congressmen are veterans or know anything about weapons, and Trump has the Secret Service.
Here’s a look at the group, by the numbers:
- 96 total veterans in the 116th Congress.
- 30 are Democrats, 66 are Republicans.
- 19 will serve in the Senate, 77 will serve in the House.
- 48 served in the military after 2000.
- 21 served in the military in the 1960s or earlier.
If you would like to know more, I recommend this video. It actually made me feel sorry for musicians!That used to be the deal. You'd sign with a major label. They'd keep the copyright to your works and in return pay for studio time and give you promotion. Artists would usually make money through publishing (covers and whatnot), touring, and merch. Taylor's first album came out in 2006. So she signed on just as that era of music was about to end. It was in the late 2000s that things began to change and finalized in the early 2010s.
Now of days, artists keep the masters for themselves and licenses them over to the labels. Or just do it indie. DAW software and hardware has made it so anyone can make a professional recording at home for under $5k. Hell, you can do it for $2k. Studios are really only used for its ambiance or because its historical or it can produce a really good drum sound.
Wait - both of them?but all I saw was this site's entire collection of Bob Chipman fans
Which is another comparison. Leftist state-worship has absorbed concepts like original sin (racism, privilege) and "we are all sinners" and whatnot, but much like with particularly haughty and somewhat insincere Catholics, the acknowledgement of your own sins is token at best, while you loudly castigate others for their sins and demand restitution, recompense, and a renewal of their vows of faith.
Young Christians especially last-year undergraduates and first-year curates are turning to it in large numbers. They are ready to believe that England hears part of the guilt for the present war, and ready to admit their own share in the guilt of England…. Are they, perhaps, repenting what they have in no sense done?
If they are, it might be supposed that their error is very harmless: men fail so often to repent their real sins that the occasional repentance of an imaginary sin might appear almost desirable. But what actually happens (I have watched it happening) to the youthful national penitent is a little more complicated than that. England is not a natural agent, but a civil society. When we speak of England’s actions we mean the actions of the British Government. The young man who is called upon to repent of England’s foreign policy is really being called upon to repent the acts of his neighbour; for a Foreign Secretary or a Cabinet Minister is certainly a neighbour. And repentance presupposes condemnation. The first and fatal charm of national repentance is, therefore, the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing but, first, of denouncing the conduct of others. If it were clear to the young that this is what he is doing, no doubt he would remember the law of charity. Unfortunately the very terms in which national repentance is recommended to him conceal its true nature. By a dangerous figure of speech, he calls the Government not ‘they’ but ‘we’. And since, as penitents, we are not encouraged to be charitable to our own sins, nor to give ourselves the benefit of any doubt, a Government which is called ‘we’ is ipso facto placed beyond the sphere of charity or even of justice. You can say anything you please about it. You can indulge in the popular vice of detraction without restraint, and yet feel all the time that you are practising contrition. A group of such young penitents will say, ‘Let us repent our national sins’; what they mean is, ‘Let us attribute to our neighbour (even our Christian neighbour) in the Cabinet. whenever we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy.’
C.S. “Jack” Lewis, “Dangers of National Repentance,” The Guardian, 15 March 1940!
Cited from God in the Dock (Eerdmans: 1970) 189.
If they are, it might be supposed that their error is very harmless: men fail so often to repent their real sins that the occasional repentance of an imaginary sin might appear almost desirable. But what actually happens (I have watched it happening) to the youthful national penitent is a little more complicated than that. England is not a natural agent, but a civil society. When we speak of England’s actions we mean the actions of the British Government. The young man who is called upon to repent of England’s foreign policy is really being called upon to repent the acts of his neighbour; for a Foreign Secretary or a Cabinet Minister is certainly a neighbour. And repentance presupposes condemnation. The first and fatal charm of national repentance is, therefore, the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing but, first, of denouncing the conduct of others. If it were clear to the young that this is what he is doing, no doubt he would remember the law of charity. Unfortunately the very terms in which national repentance is recommended to him conceal its true nature. By a dangerous figure of speech, he calls the Government not ‘they’ but ‘we’. And since, as penitents, we are not encouraged to be charitable to our own sins, nor to give ourselves the benefit of any doubt, a Government which is called ‘we’ is ipso facto placed beyond the sphere of charity or even of justice. You can say anything you please about it. You can indulge in the popular vice of detraction without restraint, and yet feel all the time that you are practising contrition. A group of such young penitents will say, ‘Let us repent our national sins’; what they mean is, ‘Let us attribute to our neighbour (even our Christian neighbour) in the Cabinet. whenever we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy.’
C.S. “Jack” Lewis, “Dangers of National Repentance,” The Guardian, 15 March 1940!
Cited from God in the Dock (Eerdmans: 1970) 189.
Probably because if they keep pushing and bothering Christians, they'll all actually unite together to punch back - and you want to be careful of that happening.Libtards constantly afraid of the impending theocracy, when in reality US has so many ever splintering Protestant groups such a theocracy would be an utter nightmare to actually manage.
Gee, if only there was some LITERAL VIDEO EVIDENCE disproving this.View attachment 1570194
That's nice, Jeffrey. Pin your story up on the fridge next to your crayon drawings. Mommy's very proud of your anonymously-sourced fiction.
OH WAIT!
Fuck off, Jeff.