RollTide1987

That 2002 team was the best Crimson Tide roster of the decade until Saban started pumping out championship-caliber teams in 2008 and 2009. Going into the Iron Bowl in Bryant-Denny, we had the top-ranked offense and defense in the conference and were playing as good of football as anyone in the country at that time.

Of course Franchione waited until the week of Iron Bowl prep to start disassociating himself from the team because he knew he would be leaving for greener pastures at the end of the season. There are players from that roster who said there would be periods during that week and the week of the Hawaii game where Franchione wouldn't even be at practice.

quote:

---

I love how people say things like this with no concept of how hypocritical and counterintuitive it is. You think it morally defensible to "dismantle Germany's economy" and effectively force subjugation and technological arrested development on a population of 80 million? Germany is inherently a powerful state due to having an intelligent and resourceful native population in the 10’s of millions. Somehow the Anglophiles believe Germany to always be unjust in seeking to elevate their status and resources in the world while the British are somehow always justified in their methods to artificially restrict them or subject them to Anglo geopolitical superiority. Ahh yes, the British and French didn’t contribute mightily to the outbreak of WWII because they sought to keep the German state in a perpetual position of subordination but rather because they didn’t go far enough to subordinate the German nation! And this is the supposed argument from the moral authorities.

Germany became a problem once they began to coalesce into a single nation-state in the latter 19th century because the geopolitical power they possessed immediately upon unity was readily apparent to everyone.

The British Empire (the irony of them lecturing anyone about subjugation, racism, etc is not unrecognized by me and many others) did not want to permit any continental power, be it French or German, to arise and threaten their hegemony. When it suited them, they sided against France. When it suited them in a new geopolitical context, they sided with France against Germany. After WWI, the new German state was forbidden to unite with Austria, irrespective if it was what both states wanted. The naked geopolitical motivations of the WWI victors cannot be ignored except by the ignorant and willfully blind. Both world wars were totally idiotic and the British Empire and its domineering and short sighted foreign policy philosophy is every bit as guilty for the wars. It’s laughable and totally revisionist to portray the British as high minded and motivated by altruism or moral considerations. They were motivated purely by power politics.

The problem is that if we continue to ignore the lessons of the British Empire in these conflicts we run the risk of making the same mistakes and dooming our own country to the fate they suffered post-WWII. The British Empire “won” WWII and now their civilization in less than a century is verging on utter collapse. The entire continent now appears at a civilizational crossroads at a time when Europe and the United States should be absolute dominating powers of the world.

After the First World War, there was a great opportunity for the leaders in the West to have learned a lesson regarding the stupidity of going to war with another in the modern age of warfare. The victors paid lip service to the Wilson principles of self determination but in practice they dictated borders for their own geopolitical ends and their efforts to control Germany led to its internal political instability which handicapped all moderate governments and facilitated the conditions for radical political factions to rise. Had the Nazis not ascended it well may have been Communists that seized control of Germany and allied with the USSR and you have WWII of a different variety.

The arguments Tucker raises are certainly legitimate and the delusion regarding WWII’s origins plays right into the hands of the neo-cons and war hawks who can manipulate the masses with the propaganda narrative of WWII, which is why you constantly hear everything compared to it when someone wants to convince the public to support a military endeavor.

---

This argument confuses power politics with moral equivalence, understates German agency, and misrepresents the interwar record.

Versailles was harsh. Territorial losses, reparations, military limits, and the war-guilt clause generated real resentment that extremists exploited. It was not, however, a deliberate plan to permanently dismantle Germany’s economy or lock 80 million people into permanent subordination. Reparations were repeatedly revised downward, Germany recovered industrially in the mid-1920s, and it remained the largest, most populous state in central Europe. Scholarly consensus has long moved past the crude “Versailles caused Hitler” thesis. The Depression, Weimar political failures, the stab-in-the-back myth, and deliberate choices for radicalism mattered more.

British and French policy was self-interested balance-of-power politics, not pure altruism. That is true of every great power of the era, including Imperial and Nazi Germany. The interwar Western approach was more often concession and gradual revision (Locarno, economic engagement, appeasement) than tighter subordination. Appeasement failed because Hitler’s aims were not limited: Rhineland remilitarization, Anschluss, the destruction of Czechoslovakia after Munich, and the invasion of Poland after the Nazi-Soviet Pact were sequential aggressions, not defensive responses to “Anglo superiority.”

German unification created a powerful state that required management in a multipolar Europe. That fact does not make every subsequent bid for dominance just, nor does it turn Nazi ideology - Lebensraum, racial hierarchy, and the elimination of “subhumans” - into ordinary great-power competition. Equating British imperial realpolitik with the Third Reich collapses differences of degree and kind.

Both world wars were catastrophic; responsibility is not symmetrical. Germany’s decisions drove the cascades in 1914 and 1939. Pointing out British hypocrisy or post-1945 imperial decline does not convert Nazi Germany into a victim seeking only parity, nor does it prove that accommodating German hegemony would have preserved Western civilization. The historical sequence from 1933 to 1939 shows a revisionist regime that chose repeated aggression after concessions had already been made.

Nope. If not for the generous nature of the NBA, the league would have folded years ago. There would be no Angel Reese, Caitlin Clark, or Sophie Cunningham to even talk about.

This ties into the phone call that was released of one of the Cornell 7 claiming that "Jane Doe" was sober when she was at the frat house.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Ryan Day has the best winning % by any coach in CFB history.

---

And yet he probably would have been fired after the loss to Michigan in 2024 if there hadn't been an expanded CFP that season. They inarguably had the best roster in all of college football that season and still managed to lose two games while missing out on the B1G Championship Game (not that that matters anymore).

quote:

---

A more accurate statement would have been that the British should have never had such a huge hand in starting WW2.

---

Explain.

quote:

---

are the muslims in russia running rape gangs? Are they operating under sharia law? Are they out there protesting against russia at every turn? You are not addressing the poster's original point (which was not about number of immigrants).

---

No. However, they are committing terrorist attacks pretty consistently over there and killing a lot of people while doing it. Back in February there was a suicide bombing at a Moscow train station. Then you had the Dagestan attacks back in June 2024 that targeted the Russian Orthodox Church that killed over 20 people. And then you had the Crocus City Hall attack in March of that same year that saw the deaths of at least 140 people.

Seeing as the Russian government has a tight lip on the media over there, it's very likely that any instances of gang rape are covered up for image purposes.

quote:

---

Can you post that you are afraid of muslim rape gangs terrorising your city if you live in Britain?

---

Let's take this to its logical conclusion. Britain obviously has problems with free speech, that much is clear, but there is a clear difference from being jailed for a day or two and finding yourself falling out of a window and dying on impact with the ground. The latter happens in Russia when you speak out against Putin and his government.

He had former conservative British MP Jacob Rees-Mogg on his show a couple of days ago and got absolutely owned by this guy. Tucker was all over the map, claiming the British should have never joined WWII, that Russia has a larger economy than Britain, and that Russians have more free speech than the British do.

quote:

---

You can bet it wasnt as simple as some peon walked into and out of a secure biolab.

Although plenty of people are dumb enough to believe that's what happened, especially if the media tells them to believe it.

---

You'd be surprised at how many of the world's greatest manmade disasters were caused by simple incompetence.

Lamar Jackson might be out for the rest of the game. So many players are going down today with injuries.