Obama Haters

[maidai]

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

"not enough evidence god ... just not enough evidence !!"

Ah, but if the evidence was completely irrefutable, then we would not have any choice other than to serve god. The god of the new testament would rather that we exercised free will. 8)

we're doing the "what if" situations now?

Im going with what we know, what is written, what it teachers, not what if its actual real or not. From what I gather from the very pages of its text, It is an evil dogma. What if Jesus was truly the Devil, only the Devil would pit human with other humans causing this type of friction throughout history.

We all know, the more educated ppl become, the more aware of the universe we become, Christianity becomes less and less of a belief or becomes unbelievible, the Universe is the only proof one needs to dispute anything the bible teachers.

please no more "what ifs" its the same as What if Allah is the one true God? what if Shiva was the True God? I want to stay away from that type of argument.

[Stramash]

Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave...

I hate to argue with you mate, but, since you are wrong, I feel I have to.

The incursions of the 'barbarians' (in itself a misleading and often inaccurate term) was not the reason for Rome's fall. It was certainly a symptom of the final days, but was not one of the primary, or even secondary reasons.

Much of the blame can be laid at Constantine's feet, though on the other hand you could laud him as a visionary who saw that Rome was a slowly dying entity. His decision to split the Empire into West and East and to base his capital at Byzantium (later Constantinople) was a primary reason for the decline of the Western Empire.

Rome itself was rife with corruption; finances were running low, the legions were going unpaid (resulting in mass desertions) and the only way the Officers could keep soldiers was by allowing widespread looting (thus creating further dissent in the Western colonies) Not that most of the colonies were enamoured of their Roman masters that much anyway.

You could also argue that there was more barbarism on the part of the Romans than by any of the subjugated tribes.

The principal families of Rome had, for the most part, deserted Rome for the East, where finances were better and there were gerater opportiunities for trade and commerce. This of course left Rome without many of its most influential figures leading in turn to increased corruption, a crash in property prices and astronomic crime rates.

In Byzantium the situation was very different; an established culture, gerat positioning vis a vis trade routes, and the finances in place to either employ foreign mercenaries (including the legendary Varangians - Vikings who had made their way via the Danube to the warmer mediterranean waters) or to placate potential invaders and aggressors such as the Huns or the Persian/Sassanid Empires. The finances also enabled Byzantium to be heavily fortified and, if my memory serves correctly, its walls were not breached till the 13th Century.

So really, as far as the Western Empire was concerned, it was the corruption, relocation of the capital, drastic reduction in their military forces etc which created the situation where the 'barbarians' could launch attack and invasion.

You also say much was lost. This may be true as far as Western Europe was concerned, but most of the art, literature, intellegentsia of Rome itself was relocated to Byzantium along with much of the wealth and the Patrician families.

Incidentally much of the 'new nobility' that took Rome's place was, for the most part, the old nobility; Germanic Roman, Romano-British etc, but the lack of finance and infrastructure saw their power return to pre-Empire levels rather than building and improving on it.

Oh and the Vandals were in North Africa, but were re-subjugated by the Eastern Empire by about the mid 6th century BC, and many of the mediterranean provinces of the former Western Empire were recaptured around the same time.

The Dark Ages were pretty much confined to Western and Northern Europe, with only the Irish really maintaining a level of learning and literacy seen under Rome.

The Eastern Empire saw centuries of growth and rennaisance, with exchanges of goods and knowledge unparalleled under Roman rule, especially given Islams prominence in learning and science at that time.

[CiaranM]

The Dark Ages were pretty much confined to Western and Northern Europe, with only the Irish really maintaining a level of learning and literacy seen under Rome.

no surprises there then !!

[CiaranM]

Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave...

I hate to argue with you mate, but, since you are wrong, I feel I have to.

and no surprises there either !!

[Stramash]

The Dark Ages were pretty much confined to Western and Northern Europe, with only the Irish really maintaining a level of learning and literacy seen under Rome.

no surprises there then !!

you are the exception to the rule mate...

[Mister Moobs]

Iain, I agree with you. And so do my links.

re-read what I wrote.

Especially this part:

It's a very simplified version of it and there is MUCH MORE to it than that.

Guess you missed that in your rush to 1upmanship. But that's ok. I've even spoken to the fleeing of the monied classes and their fleeing from the west as compared to our day and how the monied classes are fleeing Europe and America today.

Rome fell. The Eastern Empire became the Holy Roman Empire and eventually fell to the bloody empire of Islam.

Also, there is this bit that you overlooked.

But when Rome fell, much was lost. Much was saved, but, much was lost. And a great part of Europe fell into a wasted era. Not all. But some, if not most.

I know of the Irish and the Monks there who maintained the lights of antiquity.

And I was pretty sure that I was wrong about the Visigoths and had it backwards with the Vandals. Hence, the question mark after the word.

Thanks for the lesson though.

It's nice to have a civil conversation with someone.

Historians can't agree on what occurred 50 years ago. We have holocaust denial a mere 60 years after the fact. They can't agree on Reagan's affect on communism. They don't all agee on the exact causes of the fall of Rome or it's aftermath, either. Some historians are even starting to give Bush credit for what is occurring in Iran with the demonstrations. Crediting him with giving the people there the courage to act out in ways that they would not. There is the full possibility that Iraq becomes a normalized nation with a pluralistic, democratized form of Islamic governance.

Of course, most of the Libs here will hate hearing that.

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

Now if my stalker fan club member #2 could learn to act at least 17 rather than being a petulant child. What a world. I'll quote John Lennon. "Imagine."

[Mister Moobs]

I pray for President Obama safety. And BTW, Rush Limbaugh, d*ck Cheney, and Newt Gingrich eat sh*t and die motherf*ckers.

:x

The REAL hate is coming from the left.

That is obvious.

But the left is so T O L E R A N T :wink: and so open :wink:

Riiiiiight :roll:

WAIT A MINUTE!

HOLD ON!

you mistook me for someone who actually gives a ****...

now go fake a grim look at Dachau or Auschwitz

[Stramash]

Iain, I agree with you. And so do my links.

re-read what I wrote.

Especially this part:

It's a very simplified version of it and there is MUCH MORE to it than that.

Guess you missed that in your rush to 1upmanship. But that's ok. I've even spoken to the fleeing of the monied classes and their fleeing from the west as compared to our day and how the monied classes are fleeing Europe and America today.

Rome fell. The Eastern Empire became the Holy Roman Empire and eventually fell to the bloody empire of Islam.

Also, there is this bit that you overlooked.

But when Rome fell, much was lost. Much was saved, but, much was lost. And a great part of Europe fell into a wasted era. Not all. But some, if not most.

I know of the Irish and the Monks there who maintained the lights of antiquity.

And I was pretty sure that I was wrong about the Visigoths and had it backwards with the Vandals. Hence, the question mark after the word.

Thanks for the lesson though.

It's nice to have a civil conversation with someone.

Historians can't agree on what occurred 50 years ago. We have holocaust denial a mere 60 years after the fact. They can't agree on Reagan's affect on communism. They don't all agee on the exact causes of the fall of Rome or it's aftermath, either. Some historians are even starting to give Bush credit for what is occurring in Iran with the demonstrations. Crediting him with giving the people there the courage to act out in ways that they would not. There is the full possibility that Iraq becomes a normalized nation with a pluralistic, democratized form of Islamic governance.

Of course, most of the Libs here will hate hearing that.

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

Now if my stalker fan club member #2 could learn to act at least 17 rather than being a petulant child. What a world. I'll quote John Lennon. "Imagine."

Hey - not often a subject comes up (in fact this might be the only ever time) where I have read extensively on the subject discussed in both English and Latin!!

Appreciate you had realised there was more to it - my short version would be that the invasions/incursion were effect more than cause!

[Mister Moobs]

I won't argue with that.

Weakness always invites attack.

Ask the WTC after 8 years of Clinton "Empty Speech/Lob a Missile Diplomacy." lol

[maidai]

Too many excuses in why Rome Fell, Rome fell because they got their arses whipped. simple as that, its like any other empire that fell, no different. Ayutthya fell because they got beat by a stronger Kingdom called Burma. Sukothai fell because they got beat by a stronger Kingdom called Ayutthya.

WTC was struck during the Bush Admin.thats just pure fact, and I voted for Bush :?

Bush Admin got several urgent letters warning them about Al Quada, even warning them specificly about planes being used as weapons, but as we know, Bush is not to bright guy and didnt take those warning very seriously.

[Stramash]

Too many excuses in why Rome Fell, Rome fell because they got their arses whipped. simple as that, its like any other empire that fell, no different.

your lack of comprehension of historical fact amazes me...

:twisted:

[robbie36]

There is the full possibility that Iraq becomes a normalized nation with a pluralistic, democratized form of Islamic governance.

Now I didnt read the full post but this sentence did strike me as ludicrously optimistic.

As I see it a fairly badly run undemocratic, most despotic and despised country has been conquered by a country that regards itself as the paragon of freedom and democracy. The net result has been such a shambles that Iraq is considered 178th out of 180 as the most corrupt nation in the world.

So the concept that the end result will be 'normalised' or that there should be any faith in 'governance' is simply ridiculous and a bit like saying if you beat and rape a child for 20 years there is a good possibility that she wont be traumatized.

[maidai]

Too many excuses in why Rome Fell, Rome fell because they got their arses whipped. simple as that, its like any other empire that fell, no different.

your lack of comprehension of historical fact amazes me...

:twisted:

When it comes down to it, Rome got beat by a more powerful group of ppl who came from the North. Rome was weak and had a weak leader, the ethnic groups they controlled in the past no longer wanted to be controlled. thats what happens. ppl no longer wanted to assimulate into Roman Culture, you know such things as grown men banging young boys and other stuff the romans loved to do. At least in Thailand, they are ladyboys, but Roman Men just loved little boys.

[Stramash]

Too many excuses in why Rome Fell, Rome fell because they got their arses whipped. simple as that, its like any other empire that fell, no different.

your lack of comprehension of historical fact amazes me...

:twisted:

When it comes down to it, Rome got beat by a more powerful group of ppl who came from the North. Rome was weak and had a weak leader, the ethnic groups they controlled in the past no longer wanted to be controlled. thats what happens. ppl no longer wanted to assimulate into Roman Culture, you know such things as grown men banging young boys and other stuff the romans loved to do. At least in Thailand, they are ladyboys, but Roman Men just loved little boys.

sheeit, that sounds like the Fox News version of 'The Decline of The Roman Empire', lacking historical fact and watered down for brain dead idiots like yourself.

[CiaranM]

hahahahaha ..... f**king classic !!! some comprehension lessons required !!

what is it with these right wing nut jobs ... not only do they spout bollocks, they then post stuff which contradicts their claims and then says it proves them right !! f**king delusional doesn't even start to cover it !!

[eagle]

hahahahaha ..... f**king classic !!! some comprehension lessons required !!

what is it with these right wing nut jobs ... not only do they spout bollocks, they then post stuff which contradicts their claims and then says it proves them right !! f**king delusional doesn't even start to cover it !!

now now mean lefty you

[eagle]

JDaniels wrote:

Some historians are even starting to give Bush credit for what is occurring in Iran with the demonstrations. Crediting him with giving the people there the courage to act out in ways that they would not.

Yea sure , Maybe they will get the courage to bomb someplace to smithereens by reason of faulty intel also

[PJack]

WTC was struck during the Bush Admin.thats just pure fact, and I voted for Bush

poetry

[beej]

I won't argue with that.

Weakness always invites attack.

Ask the WTC after 8 years of Clinton "Empty Speech/Lob a Missile Diplomacy." lol

ohhhhhhhh WTC how I love to quote you, ******* records scratched can someone change it please?

[eagle]

I won't argue with that.

Weakness always invites attack.

Ask the WTC after 8 years of Clinton "Empty Speech/Lob a Missile Diplomacy." lol

ohhhhhhhh WTC how I love to quote you, f*cking records scratched can someone change it please?

Clinton did it Clinton did it rawwww rawwwwwk

[beej]

Yep he should have done a preemptive strike and killed every Arab in the world before it happened.

Damn that Clinton getting his blow jobs and not caring enough about National security, I'm so glad Bush got in and went right to work on preparing the country the best he could............ from his ranch.

[eagle]

Yep he should have done a preemptive strike and killed every Arab in the world before it happened.

Damn that Clinton getting his blow jobs and not caring enough about National security, I'm so glad Bush got in and went right to work on preparing the country the best he could............ from his ranch.

Yea he prepared the country like a rib roast for the bankers an AIG to slice up. Yummmmm texas style yeeehaaaa

[zeusbheld]

Historians can't agree on what occurred 50 years ago. We have holocaust denial a mere 60 years after the fact.

while there is some truth to the notion that historians don't completely agree on much, to imply in any way that holocaust denial is a position held by credible historians is glib at best, and could be construed as dishonest. i don't think that was your intent but to claim historians don't even come close to agreeing on anything, as if there are no undisputed facts, is a gross oversimplification that misrepresents historiography and disrespects the vocation at best.

[eagle]

Yep he should have done a preemptive strike and killed every Arab in the world before it happened.

Damn that Clinton getting his blow jobs and not caring enough about National security, I'm so glad Bush got in and went right to work on preparing the country the best he could............ from his ranch.

yea he prepared it good. A bit of pepper and lots of salt. Put it on a deregulating spit and cooked tender. yeeehaaa texas style !!!! :twisted:

[Oo.Cloud.oO]

haters

lolz