Is this definition of Traditional Catholics correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
The wolves could not point to themselves and their partners in destroying Western life and families.They had to point to Vatican II, constantly and frequently. The wording might be different whenever it’s mentioned but they needed a scapegoat so the liars lied again and will continue the lie unless we correct them every time.

God has sent us Pope Francis at this hour and he is, I firmly believe, staking the heart of the evil. Using simple, clear and gentle words, he is calling to us and I feel and hear all of what was lost - all that I had been taught - being repeated, word for word, through him.

Let us consider the professional, conservative looking and highly educated liars and what they did to convince Catholic institutions of higher learning to cut their ties with the Church hierarchy in 1967, by using the same word as their Hippie counterparts - Freedom.

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

We need to know our history, dear brother.

A priest on Catholic Radio said that things “went crazy” in Catholic seminaries in the 1970s. Seminarians were taught about Humanae Vitae but the lie was slipped in that the Church may change its teaching on artificial birth control in the future. So, what happened? I heard a priest on Catholic Radio tell listeners that priests told their parishioners who asked about ABC, not what Pope Paul VI wrote but that “it was a matter of personal conscience.” I was shocked and to this day, feel the pain. Much of what I know now was not known to me then. As I wrote, I thought things would continue normally, but they didn’t and now, I am told, things are being straightened out and the ship is being set right.

Even among nuns, radical ideas began to spread, and Pope Francis is reminding them of their mission and has begun a reform process.

ncregister.com/daily-news/the-lcwr-vs.-the-vatican-setting-the-record-straight/

So, dear brother, it is my considered view that infiltration occurred at many levels and took decades of hard, constant work by the servants of evil. The cry for Freedom was the lie that opened doors and exposed us to manipulation. At every turn, our trust was abused, followed by a media that turned from light to dark. So the matter of catechesis became an introduction to a version of being Catholic that “allowed” all sorts of wrong ideas to be added. Instead of the loaf being leavened and remaining pure, it slowly became filled with some poison.

No wonder many of our colleges and universities mirror their secular counterparts. Water dripping on a rock long enough can wear part of it away. I would say that until about the mid-1980s, it was about 50-50. After that, into the abyss.

To put it more simply, how can one hour in Church a week compete with the evil sights, sounds and behaviors we are surrounded by which are constantly being reinforced. Good is too hard. Bad is much easier.

But have hope. Throughout the Bible, we read how God always leaves a faithful remnant when the flock goes astray.

God bless you and have a pleasant weekend,

Ed
Click to expand...
The Church is still recovering from what the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ crowd wrought. But it is recovering…and in the unlikeliest of places…

ncregister.com/daily-news/protestant-south-becoming-a-new-catholic-stronghold?utm_source=feedly

ncregister.com/daily-news/bible-belt-parish-builds-gods-kingdom/

patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/08/a-beautiful-video-of-a-new-bride-of-christ.html
 
Abu said:
The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in Christ Denied TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of some nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes
Click to expand...
by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s *Catholicism *(full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.

How many Catholics know this? The great papal teaching and guidance of popes Bl John Paul II, Benedict Emeritus XVI, and now Francis I, have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.

My thanks and appreciation for your references.

Hosea 4:6 “My people perish for want of knowledge!
Since you have rejected knowledge,
I will reject you from my priesthood;
Since you have ignored the law of your
God,
I will also ignore your sons.” NAB

The three Popes you mentioned are and have steered the Church away from the chaos and into the Light of Faith.

God bless you,
Ed
 
Cat said:
Before you can correctly assess how we got where we are today, you must first know where we were. You only know where YOU were. You don’t seem to be willing to admit that many people were not in the same place as you. You are basing your assessment of history on a false assumption–that life was the same for everyone in the U.S. as it was for you. This is utterly false, and therefore, your conclusions are questionable because they are based on a falsehood.

There are many people who did not experience a “great time” in the 1950s and 1960s.

As I mentioned before, for black people, the United States in the 1950s and 60s (and earlier) was a not a “better place”. During the times that you say, “We had a great time” and “we did not lock our doors at night” and “people were friendlier,” black people were experiencing deliberate and legal discrimination. It was an evil time for them and their memories of the 1950s are not pleasant as yours are.

I mentioned several other examples in my post, examples which you dismiss. You say, “I could care less what people in Hollywood did or didn’t do.” I would suggest that you’d better start caring, because what people in Hollywood do and don’t do often is the “guiding force” that determines the direction of our culture. To disregard the influence of the entertainment industry on society is, frankly, naive and foolish.

If we had paid more attention to the entertainment industry about 10 years ago, when certain television shows like Will and Grace started depicting gay men as “normal,” we might not be fighting for traditional marriage right now, a fight which we have already lost. God have mercy on us.

As for changing the subject, I really have no idea what this conversation sidetrack has to do with the OP and traditionalist Catholicism. I am friends with several Catholics who would call themselves “traditionalist” because they serve at the Latin Mass on a daily or weekly basis, and incorporate many other “traditional” (small t) Catholic practices and devotions into their daily lives, and teach their children to do the same.

These Catholics are highly intelligent, and have a good grasp of history, and many of them could intelligently discuss how both secular and religious culture got where they are today.

But my traditionalist friends live lives of joy and optimism, and they don’t keep looking back or describing how much better the past was. They live very much in the present, and strive to make a difference for the good and for God in our world.

**Their traditionalist mindset and practices are not throwbacks to a past age. The Catholic Church allows traditional (small t) practices and encourages their continuance, therefore, traditionalist Catholic practices, including the Latin Mass, are actually part of MODERN Catholic culture. ** I think we need to stop thinking of “traditionalist” Catholicism as a blast from the past, and instead, recognize that it is as modern as it is in every generation of Catholics.
Click to expand...
Your comments are only meant to divert the attention of the reader. Again, by attempting to falsely attribute my comments only to me, you ignore the scholarly work that has gone on. See post #19.

Your attempts at name-calling and insults are pointless. I own a copy of The Creation Of The Media by Paul Starr, winner of the Pulitzer Prize. I am in contact with two Hollywood production studios. I have read a great deal more about the time period regarding its effect on the masses. I have met twice with a Script Editor from a name Hollywood production company and compared my work as an editor for a publishing company to his. Please don’t assume you know more about me than what I’ve written.

Peace,
Ed
 
Cat said:
Before you can correctly assess how we got where we are today, you must first know where we were. You only know where YOU were. You don’t seem to be willing to admit that many people were not in the same place as you. You are basing your assessment of history on a false assumption–that life was the same for everyone in the U.S. as it was for you. This is utterly false, and therefore, your conclusions are questionable because they are based on a falsehood.

There are many people who did not experience a “great time” in the 1950s and 1960s.

As I mentioned before, for black people, the United States in the 1950s and 60s (and earlier) was a not a “better place”. During the times that you say, “We had a great time” and “we did not lock our doors at night” and “people were friendlier,” black people were experiencing deliberate and legal discrimination. It was an evil time for them and their memories of the 1950s are not pleasant as yours are.

I mentioned several other examples in my post, examples which you dismiss. You say, “I could care less what people in Hollywood did or didn’t do.” I would suggest that you’d better start caring, because what people in Hollywood do and don’t do often is the “guiding force” that determines the direction of our culture. To disregard the influence of the entertainment industry on society is, frankly, naive and foolish.

If we had paid more attention to the entertainment industry about 10 years ago, when certain television shows like Will and Grace started depicting gay men as “normal,” we might not be fighting for traditional marriage right now, a fight which we have already lost. God have mercy on us.

As for changing the subject, I really have no idea what this conversation sidetrack has to do with the OP and traditionalist Catholicism. I am friends with several Catholics who would call themselves “traditionalist” because they serve at the Latin Mass on a daily or weekly basis, and incorporate many other “traditional” (small t) Catholic practices and devotions into their daily lives, and teach their children to do the same.

These Catholics are highly intelligent, and have a good grasp of history, and many of them could intelligently discuss how both secular and religious culture got where they are today.

But my traditionalist friends live lives of joy and optimism, and they don’t keep looking back or describing how much better the past was. They live very much in the present, and strive to make a difference for the good and for God in our world.

**Their traditionalist mindset and practices are not throwbacks to a past age. The Catholic Church allows traditional (small t) practices and encourages their continuance, therefore, traditionalist Catholic practices, including the Latin Mass, are actually part of MODERN Catholic culture. ** I think we need to stop thinking of “traditionalist” Catholicism as a blast from the past, and instead, recognize that it is as modern as it is in every generation of Catholics.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Portrait said:
Dear gracepoole,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

That description is accurate as far as it goes, but as you say the term ‘traditional’ (or ‘traditionalist’) can be used in numerous ways, even, I am sorry to say, as an *ad hominem *, as when a man wishes to appeal to the emotions rather than reasoned argument. Thus, for example, a Catholic who is speaking of the indisputable worldliness within the contemporary Western Church and reminds his brethren of their call to personal sanctity and separation (CCC, paras 2013-15), would elicit a frosty reaction and probably find himself branded a radical ‘traditionalist’ type. Indeed, they might go even further than this and charge him with ‘overscrupulosity’ or of trying to steer his fellow Catholics in a narrow Puritan direction. My point is, dear friend, that the words ‘traditional’/‘traditionalist’ can be, and infrequently are, used as a weapon against those with whom profoundly disagree, with aim of closing them down or making them feel ashamed of their deeply held convictions.

Moreover, to take some further examples, dear friend, even to suggest that there is a manifestly grave internal crisis currently afflicting Holy Mother Church, is to lay oneself open to harsh accusations of being a fanatical traditionalist or of being in sympathy with some schismatic grouping. Again, speaking negatively, but respectfully, about World Youth Day can also bring down upon a man the same sort of opprobrious response, as can perfectly legitimate criticism of a saccharine pseudo-doctrine of brotherly love, ersatz social justice or a spurious dialogue with Protestants. In all these cases he will likely find his character savagely attacked and his motives uncharitably impugned, treated with disdain and being dismissed as a ‘radical traditionalist’, disloyal to the Magisterium, notwithstanding that this is completely untrue. The term ‘traditionalist’ being used simply to discredit him and anything he has to say, in other words it is a classic case of an ad hominem attack.
Click to expand...
Watch it now…you could be labeled a ‘mad trad’ and have a radio show named after you. 🙂
 
edwest2 said:
Your comments are only meant to divert the attention of the reader. Again, by attempting to falsely attribute my comments only to me, you ignore the scholarly work that has gone on. See post #19.

Your attempts at name-calling and insults are pointless. I own a copy of The Creation Of The Media by Paul Starr, winner of the Pulitzer Prize. I am in contact with two Hollywood production studios. I have read a great deal more about the time period regarding its effect on the masses. I have met twice with a Script Editor from a name Hollywood production company and compared my work as an editor for a publishing company to his. Please don’t assume you know more about me than what I’ve written.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Begging your pardon, but I do not see any name-calling or insults in my post. Forgive my denseness, but I honestly don’t recognize anything that I have written in the post that is name-calling or an insult.

If you or someone else can point them out to me, I would be very grateful. If I am being rude or insulting, I need to know it so that I can stop doing it. I don’t want to incur an infraction, or get banned from CAF, for name-calling or insults. And I don’t want to hurt anyone or be a bully. Perhaps my writing is bad enough that I don’t even realize when I am calling a name or insulting someone.

I would really appreciate it if someone would be kind enough to specifically spell out the places in my post where I called Edwest2 or anyone else a name, and where I insulted Edwest2 or anyone else.

Thanks so much for helping me to stop writing rude things.
 
Cat said:
Before you can correctly assess how we got where we are today, you must first know where we were. You only know where YOU were. You don’t seem to be willing to admit that many people were not in the same place as you. You are basing your assessment of history on a false assumption–that life was the same for everyone in the U.S. as it was for you. This is utterly false, and therefore, your conclusions are questionable because they are based on a falsehood.

There are many people who did not experience a “great time” in the 1950s and 1960s.

As I mentioned before, for black people, the United States in the 1950s and 60s (and earlier) was a not a “better place”. During the times that you say, “We had a great time” and “we did not lock our doors at night” and “people were friendlier,” black people were experiencing deliberate and legal discrimination. It was an evil time for them and their memories of the 1950s are not pleasant as yours are.

I mentioned several other examples in my post, examples which you dismiss. You say, “I could care less what people in Hollywood did or didn’t do.” I would suggest that you’d better start caring, because what people in Hollywood do and don’t do often is the “guiding force” that determines the direction of our culture. To disregard the influence of the entertainment industry on society is, frankly, naive and foolish.

If we had paid more attention to the entertainment industry about 10 years ago, when certain television shows like Will and Grace started depicting gay men as “normal,” we might not be fighting for traditional marriage right now, a fight which we have already lost. God have mercy on us.

As for changing the subject, I really have no idea what this conversation sidetrack has to do with the OP and traditionalist Catholicism. I am friends with several Catholics who would call themselves “traditionalist” because they serve at the Latin Mass on a daily or weekly basis, and incorporate many other “traditional” (small t) Catholic practices and devotions into their daily lives, and teach their children to do the same.

These Catholics are highly intelligent, and have a good grasp of history, and many of them could intelligently discuss how both secular and religious culture got where they are today.

But my traditionalist friends live lives of joy and optimism, and they don’t keep looking back or describing how much better the past was. They live very much in the present, and strive to make a difference for the good and for God in our world.

**Their traditionalist mindset and practices are not throwbacks to a past age. The Catholic Church allows traditional (small t) practices and encourages their continuance, therefore, traditionalist Catholic practices, including the Latin Mass, are actually part of MODERN Catholic culture. ** I think we need to stop thinking of “traditionalist” Catholicism as a blast from the past, and instead, recognize that it is as modern as it is in every generation of Catholics.
Click to expand...
Whoa, great post! 👍
 
edwest2 said:
Your comments are only meant to divert the attention of the reader. Again, by attempting to falsely attribute my comments only to me, you ignore the scholarly work that has gone on. See post #19.

Your attempts at name-calling and insults are pointless. I own a copy of The Creation Of The Media by Paul Starr, winner of the Pulitzer Prize. I am in contact with two Hollywood production studios. I have read a great deal more about the time period regarding its effect on the masses. I have met twice with a Script Editor from a name Hollywood production company and compared my work as an editor for a publishing company to his. Please don’t assume you know more about me than what I’ve written.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I read Cat’s post and did not see any insults or name calling. :confused:

Her post was directly in reply to yours, so I also don’t see why you’re accusing her of trying to divert attention, when she’s merely just responding to everything you said. :confused:

I think Cat makes some very good points - you talk about the 50 and 60 as overall being so much better, but it certainly wasn’t better for blacks, and in a lot of ways it certainly wasn’t better for women. Health care wasn’t nearly as good, and it was a time of war and drafting.

There are some things about that time that were better, but others that were worse. There are some problems we have now that we didn’t have back then, and there are some problems we had back then that we don’t have now. I think the bottom line is that every era comes with it’s ups and downs, and none is overall “better” than the other.

Wouldn’t you agree with all that?
 
Debora123 said:
I read Cat’s post and did not see any insults or name calling. :confused:

Her post was directly in reply to yours, so I also don’t see why you’re accusing her of trying to divert attention, when she’s merely just responding to everything you said. :confused:

I think Cat makes some very good points - you talk about the 50 and 60 as overall being so much better, but it certainly wasn’t better for blacks, and in a lot of ways it certainly wasn’t better for women. Health care wasn’t nearly as good, and it was a time of war and drafting.

There are some things about that time that were better, but others that were worse. There are some problems we have now that we didn’t have back then, and there are some problems we had back then that we don’t have now. I think the bottom line is that every era comes with it’s ups and downs, and none is overall “better” than the other.

Wouldn’t you agree with all that?
Click to expand...
👍
 
Debora123 said:
I think the bottom line is that every era comes with it’s ups and downs, and none is overall “better” than the other.
Click to expand...
I really don’t see how anyone with a decent understanding of history could come to this conclusion.

There are holier times and more sinful times. I do not believe in “golden ages” but to say that every generation achieves the same degree of holiness goes against all evidence and reason.

Modern sociology has given us even more tools to study this so we can see how fast we going downhill at the moment.

But I guess we’re pretty far from the OP now. My bad.
 
edwest2 said:
To Cat-

In general, your comments mirror the many standard replies but since I lived through it, I can tell you this.
  1. We did not lock our doors at night.
  2. People were friendlier.
  3. Some people enjoy pointing out certain problems as if we didn’t know about them.
  4. I could care less what people in Hollywood did or didn’t do
  5. I knew the travel time for a Russian ICBM. I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and you know what? I didn’t lose a second of sleep over it. We had a great time. The media was not filthy. A man would appear on TV to tell us he was part of that station’s Standards and Practices Department and they watched everything we watched to make sure it was suitable for the entire family.
  6. When a neighbor threw out a box of old Playboys, some of the moms got together and disposed of them through unknown means. We were taught to stay away from dirty magazines.
I am sick and tired of people telling me that what I describe was idyllic. I never used that word. Every year, the nuns would give us containers to fill with coins that would be used to help poor people, so we gave up on snacks and candy and put what we could into those containers. None of our families was wealthy. I am not pining for anything. I am simply pointing out that life was better than today. And it’s all documented.

We can’t go forward if we don’t understand how we got from point A to point B, especially Catholics.

It’s too bad you don’t get it. The moral decay in the West did not occur by magic or because the date on the calendar changed. So please, don’t change the subject. The War on Families and babies in the womb began shortly after Vatican II which is the official scapegoat for the propagandists today.

money.cnn.com/2013/01/31/news/economy/secretary-women-jobs/index.html

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, I will back you up on what you remember. Life was very different back then. People were different.
 
edwest2 said:
1969 The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws was formed. Enemy number one? The Catholic Church. They initiated a full-scale disinformation campaign to gain public sympathy through the media.

1970s To create visible signs and to multiply temptations, porn bookstores, topless bars and strip clubs opened everywhere. Who financed this? Why was it legal? The pornographers had lawyers who claimed they had the First Amendment right to do this. Porn in the First Amendment?

Movies began to focus on the evil, like Rosemary’s Baby which is about a Catholic Woman who is impregnated by the devil. Which is an apt metaphor for all that followed. TV gradually began to add sexual and risque content. Who was allowing this?

1973 Not only does the US Supreme Court, not the people, legalize the slaughter of babies in the womb, the American Psychiatric Association, under pressure from radical gay activists, removed homosexuality from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by vote. Forget the years of published research and studies. Just forget it. With this official approval in hand, they could now go to the courts and overturn sodomy laws.

The Hippies began coming into our neighborhoods and preached the spirit of Anti-Christ. No religion, except those from the East. Don’t trust anyone over 30! Don’t honor your mother and father, use illegal drugs and alcohol, and have sex with anyone. I didn’t take it seriously. They verbally abused Catholics, calling us “sexually repressed” or “You Catholics think sex is dirty.” They said Freedom but all they wanted was slavery. They claimed the past was dead, to be replaced by a Woodstock Nation which was a lie. But then, as now, by hook or crook, they needed laws to build the world they wanted. And they invited us to live as their tribe did, and openly proclaimed their hatred for conformity while living in their own very defined, ultra-orthodox conformity. And gentleness? Their coarse speech and manner and lack of respect for all authority but their own, led some to imitate them. They had a “better way.”

By the end of the 1970s, corrupt music and songs began to appear. Sexual and promoting anarchy. Take Iggy Pop and Five Foot One. Among the lyrics: "I wish life could be Swedish Magazines (pornography). “I wish life could be anything!” Anarchy. The Sex Pistols? Anarchy in the UK?

Head Shops (head being short for dopehead) began to appear in my neighborhood. They sold black light posters, smelled of incense, sold ‘roach clips’ so you wouldn’t burn your fingers as you got your last toke from your marijuana joint. They also sold underground newspapers that were sexual, Marxist, and corporations are evil propaganda. One issue included a poster captioned “Eat the Rich.” They also sold perverted and graphically sexual underground comix. Most did not last long.

Then the assault against women came in a very powerful way through magazines like Ms., co-founded by Gloria Steinem who said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” That would be all men. My mother watched a protest on TV at the time and asked me, “What do these women want?” I didn’t know. But it is clear today that by painting all men as the enemy it was like fertilizing the ground for the next step.

1980s No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country. For a fee and a few signatures, lawyers took your money. And the pump had been primed in the previous decade: “hate, fear and distrust all men.” As one man told me, “It just got too easy.” Who devalued marriage? The law, in the form of lawyers. I saw plenty of ads like this: “No kids? $75.00 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” And what of the children torn apart in the process? That was never emphasized as a bad thing. A book came out titled: “How to have a healthy Divorce.” The lie we were told that allowed for this law was that court dockets were full and cases could drag on for months. Knowing what I know now, who could afford the money to pay for legal counsel for months?

It caused me pain and confusion to watch my fellow Catholics, many of whom I grew up with, slowly begin the descent into a life of illegal drug use, sex without commitment, and getting hooked on pornography. Their only excuse being, “it’s legal.”

Then we got cable TV and porn. Who allowed this?

continued…
Click to expand...
You left out women burning their bras in the very late 1960s. I remember that quite well.

Other than that, you have described it all very well and accurately. 👍👍👍
 
Debora123 said:
I read Cat’s post and did not see any insults or name calling. :confused:

Her post was directly in reply to yours, so I also don’t see why you’re accusing her of trying to divert attention, when she’s merely just responding to everything you said. :confused:

I think Cat makes some very good points - you talk about the 50 and 60 as overall being so much better, but it certainly wasn’t better for blacks, and in a lot of ways it certainly wasn’t better for women. Health care wasn’t nearly as good, and it was a time of war and drafting.

There are some things about that time that were better, but others that were worse. There are some problems we have now that we didn’t have back then, and there are some problems we had back then that we don’t have now. I think the bottom line is that every era comes with it’s ups and downs, and none is overall “better” than the other.

Wouldn’t you agree with all that?
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
Lormar said:
You left out women burning their bras in the very late 1960s. I remember that quite well.

Other than that, you have described it all very well and accurately. 👍👍👍
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, he left out racial segregation, war, and second class citizenship for women as well. :rolleyes:

Or do you not think those were negative things?
 
Lormar said:
Ed, I will back you up on what you remember. Life was very different back then. People were different.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s not just my memory or the memories of all those I know who lived through it with me. Anyone who thinks, even for a moment, that our present immoral, hedonistic and profanity spewing “modern” time period has any comparison whatsoever with the 1950s and early 1960s has read nothing regarding the time period.

Peace,
Ed
 
Lormar said:
You left out women burning their bras in the very late 1960s. I remember that quite well.

Other than that, you have described it all very well and accurately. 👍👍👍
Click to expand...
He forgot to mention the Viet Nam war which claimed many of our young men. Canada claimed a lot too. Only the wealthy and politically connected were exempt.

It was the poor who were most affected. Yeah, people were more moral then.
 
Indyann said:
He forgot to mention the Viet Nam war which claimed many of our young men. Canada claimed a lot too. Only the wealthy and politically connected were exempt.

It was the poor who were most affected. Yeah, people were more moral then.
Click to expand...
You are free to view the past through your own eyes.

🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top