|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions based on a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc, you do know that the EPA is a Conservative Republican creation don't you? No, I didn't know that. I could have sworn that Democrats controlled the House and Senate during the late 60's and early 70's. I also could have sworn that the National Environmental Policy Act was introduced in the senate by senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, in 1969. It was that act that led to the creation of the EPA. Senator Henry M. Jackson introduces the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into the U.S. Senate on February 18, 1969. - HistoryLink.org The EPA's creation happened as a result of a bi-partisan realization in the late 60's that something needed to be done about pollution. At that time, it was neither "conservative Republican", or liberal Democrat in nature. It took about 8 to 10 years for it to become a power grabbing tool for liberal Democrats. And it's stayed that way up to today.
quote: and
quote: Jay H. Lehr: The Beginning of the End of EPA and, from another link;
quote: How the EPA Works | HowStuffWorks The confusion that was created with Jackson's NEPA, combined with the hodgepodge of local regulations that were popping up all over the U.S. to address the problem, prompted the EPA to be created during a Republican administration. So I have 2 questions for you; 1) Did you make the above statement;
the EPA is a Conservative Republican creation only because it was signed into law by a Republican president? Or do you have other reasons, maybe from revisionist websites, that you could link me to? And question #2) As a "conservative Republican creation", do you believe it was in opposition to liberal Democrat positions? Either in the early days of its creation, or in its entire life, up to and including today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
The Roman Empire did not have some sort of precipitous collapse. So there were no barbarian invasions of Rome in 410 and 476? Romulus Augustulus was NOT deposed in 476?
But I am very interested in your fevered imaginations about what happened to the Roman Empire. I'm only very slightly interested in yours, but let's have them.
Do some research about the person my screen name is based on. Your screen name does not inspire me to look upon you with an elevated measure of awe concerning your knowledge of any subject, including this one. I tend to go more by what you actually say, and how it measures up to actual history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
And you, sir, are a fun ruiner!!. I was rather enjoying the back and forth between LNA and marc9000 regarding the history of the Roman Empire. And then you come along insisting on facts... Yet so far he has presented none. And you're very impressed! Must be that screen name....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
And it still has nothing to do with the topic. Thank you, that's as good a reason as any for being afraid to answer either of my questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: Romulus Augustulus was NOT deposed in 476? Please show where I said such a thing. You didn't, but after some of the hilarious things you said about U.S. foundings, I didn't know what to expect.
These events were toward the end of a long slow process. The empire a this time was a shadow of its former self. Many believe that a comparable long, slow process is happening now in the U.S. Many believe that comparable, barbaric invasions could happen in the U.S. if liberals have their way with wide open borders. Many believe that the U.S. could become a shadow of its former self, if it continues taking for granted its existence, like many Romans did 2000 years ago.
Your comments do not at all show that there was a precipitous collapse, if there was show what it was. Please show where I said there was a precipitous collapse.
Do you even know who Theodoric the Great is? I know that you aint him.
Have you heard of the Eastern Empire? Do you know anything about Romulus Augustulus other than it is a name you read? Tell me all about the wonderful empire he was emperor of in 476. I believe the U.S. is in decline. And I think the laziness and carelessness that's causing it could be very comparable to the Roman Empire becoming a shadow of its former self. With today's communications, travel, technology, being so far ahead of what it was 2000 years ago, the U.S. could end up being a shadow of its former self much quicker than the long slow process that it took for the Roman Empire. That's the reason this subject came up, its not surprising that you're now trying to take it down detailed rabbit trails that derail the thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
So nothing like Rome. Thanks for clarifying. Maybe you should stop using that comparison. Nothing like Rome? Here's a couple of lines from my message 120 that you dismiss;
quote: So I "clarified" that the U.S. was "nothing like Rome" in that paragraph?
quote: What do you think about him, NoNukes? He didn't see any reference to Rome there. Here's another comparison to the U.S. of today with Rome of 2000 years ago; Five reasons why the Roman Empire fell And a partial quote from his link;
quote: How do you think the Roman government's size multiplying by 10 compares with how the U.S. government's size has multiplied over the past 50 years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc the great writes: Yet so far he has presented none. Maybe not, but on the other hand, he is not the poster pretending to teach us history lessons based on a subject he knows nothing about. So far that appears to be the plan you and LNA are following. What makes it appear that way? What evidence do you have that he knows more, and is more capable of researching, the history of the Roman empire, than am I? Just because you and him share worldviews, that makes him more likely to know more about history than me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
You are not reading what I wrote. Oh no I read exactly what you wrote. Let's look at it again;
Maybe not, but on the other hand, he is not the poster pretending to teach us history lessons based on a subject he knows nothing about. So far that appears to be the plan you and LNA are following. You said he IS NOT the poster pretending to teach us history lessons based on a subject he knows nothing about, yet he has shown no detailed knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
I don't have any comment on what Theodoric wrote, because he is primarily asking you to back up what you are saying. He strongly implied that he knows a lot about the Roman empire. By saying he IS NOT pretending to teach us blah blah, you assigned a knowledge you believe he has that you don't believe I have, yet I, like Theodoric, have barely started addressing the subject in detail.
My statement is directed towards you and LNA and the claims you are making. Yet you make no statement towards him and the claims he is making.
I still wish he had let the two of you pile up a bunch of crap before weighing in, because I was enjoying the entertainment value. Well as you can see, I "piled up" a few comparisons of what happened in Rome versus what could happen in the U.S. today, (message 120) and he couldn't see any reference to the Roman government at all, even the word "ROMAN" actually appeared in what I wrote. I even pointed that out to you, and you ignored it. So I'm getting plenty of entertainment value too! Did my examples of the increases in the Roman government (message 127) shorty before it fell as they compare to the recent increases in U.S. government also entertain you? Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I asked you repeatedly to back up your arguments with evidence and all you have done is attack me. If you can support your arguments with actual facts and analysis then do it. If not stop the whole Roman comparison. Anyone can make a claim that the US is a modern collapsing comparison to Rome but all you have presented is facile assertions. My message 120 was more than an attack on you. It's "facile" assertions could very well have been a partial outline on why the U.S. voters just made such a drastic change in the beliefs and intentions from their former president to their current one. The word "concise" would be more applicable to my generalizations than the word facile.
Most of which seem to be a gross misunderstanding of the actual end of the Roman Empire. If you want to actually proceed down this road, your first requirement is to define what you believe constitutes the end of the empire. Once you do that we can go from there. That would be a new thread which I'm not interested in.
I have never claimed to know more about the Roman empire than you. To do so would be silly. I know nothing about your academic background and you know nothing about mine. Also, academic credentials are not the only source of expertise. Extensive subject matter knowledge can be achieved through personal research and reading. I would have more respect for someone that can show subject matter expertise rather than a person with a PhD in an unrelated subject. That being said I can point to a number of books on the subject. There are a few general historical surveys that are quite good and also a few good fairly technical looks at the subject. Most should be available through a public library system or online. It's not necessary to do an in-depth analyzation of the Roman Empire to make a few general points about how the U.S. could be making some of the same general mistakes that the Romans did, which contributed to their downfall. A few links that show the basics of why Rome fell, (most links generally agree on the basics) is all that's necessary. And yes, one of the links I'm about to show mentions the lead poisoned drinking water, which I'll address.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Are you actually claiming you have no idea what sarcasm is? I didn't look at it as sarcasm as much as an inability to address what I said.
Also, please stop misrepresenting what I post. It destroys your argument and makes you look petty and foolish. This is ironic, since you misrepresented MY post by claiming it had nothing to do with Rome, since it actually had the word "Rome" in it.
I was showing that your post gave us nothing to show that the USA is like the Roman empire. I'm not saying or implying that the U.S. is "like" the Roman Empire. I'm saying the U.S. could be making some general mistakes that both the Roman people of that time and the Roman government of that time were making.
If you want to have an honest debate I will gladly take up the challenge, with facts, data and analysis. If you want to continue down the road of dishonesty, than good day sir. I'm not looking for long, drawn out, boring, hard to read nuts and bolts history of the Roman Empire. I realize that's the only way today's big government, wide open border liberals see as a chance to downplay the history proven dangerous carelessness the U.S. has been exhibiting, especially for the past 8 years. Don't you want to see my brief, concise response to your brief, concise claim about the lead poisoned drinking water in Rome?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
Earlier you intimated that barabarian invasions were responsible for the the fall(hmm the USA has not been invaded), now it is the number of bureaucrats? Does the U.S. have to be invaded before you on the left will believe it's actually possible for it to happen? We suffered a costly attack on 9-11-01, no one on the U.S. political left thought that could possibly happen either. After only 15 years, it now seems to be largely forgotten.
Your link does not provide original source. I will try to find original source. Numbers seem a bit off, but not sure. Context means everything. The exact numbers aren't necessary for my general points to be valid. Here's another link of 8 reasons Rome fell, they generally agree with my previous link of 5 reasons; 8 Reasons Why Rome Fell - HISTORY
quote: The U.S. is a "superpower", Rome was a "superpower" in its day. Not a term that I'm especially fond of, but its a designation of a (usually) large land-area country that is a successful country economically, is quite capable of defending itself, and can unfortunately be the envy of smaller, less successful countries. There are 2000 years difference in the existence of these two superpowers, but human tendencies and desires don't change. There are and have always been "wars and rumors of wars". The Romans had barbarian enemies, and the U.S. today has a barbarian enemy, ISIS. An invasion of the U.S. by ISIS will be considered impossible until it happens, just like the flying of planes into buildings was though impossible until it happened.
quote: $20 trillion in debt? Liberals claims that we need illegal immigrants in the country to do work that our citizens won't do?
quote: The increased political division in the U.S.? Just after previous elections, did you notice organized protests with people carrying signs "not my president"? Or is this the first one? A small minority, sure, but how many of the majority of that party did something besides wink and nod at them?
quote: Overexpansion doesn't apply to the U.S. The question of military overspending could be questioned, since it seems they didn't have enough military to keep the barbarians out.
quote: Sound familiar?
quote: Arrival? Migration? Illegal immigrants, anyone?
quote: Yes, some historians blame Christianity for the fall of Rome. But it wasn't a free (for individuals) exercise of Christianity that was the problem, it was the attempts to establish it as a state religion. It was a new religion, a CHANGE in religion, that increased the turmoil. Just like the turmoil is increasing in the U.S. with its increasing establishment of a new religion, atheism, and all the lack of traditional morals and earth worship that go along with it.
quote: Do you remember the reference by someone, can't remember who, earlier in this thread that claimed illegal immigrants were legally in the current U.S. military?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
This one largely agrees with the previous one, but this one includes the lead poisoning one, so I'll address that;
quote: Wine? Excessive drinking? Maybe the problem was more with drunkenness than it was with lead in water. Does the U.S. today have a bigger and bigger appetite for drinking, and more importantly, illegal drugs resulting in overdoses? Seems like I saw a reference to increases in gambling in the later days of the Roman Empire too. Have you noticed an increase in legalized gambling in the U.S. recently? I can easily remember when there was no such thing as state lotteries in the U.S.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I want an honest debate with an honest debater. I will look elsewhere. Thank you. I'm sure NoNukes will be highly amused at the way you smoked me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Another dishonest debater? I have not responded to Jar in this thread. My whole purpose of continuing this Roman subthread is to get markymarc to show how Rome is relevant to the topic as yet he has not. He just continues to spout random reasons for the fall of Rome. Most just rehashes from various apologists. I do not know if it is off topic, because of yet I have not seen the purpose of the argument. He is just spouting a gish gallop with no supporting analysis. I guess at this time we can assume it is off topic as he refuses to support what he asserts. It goes back to my Message 93. Twice you asked me to clarify, and I thought you were just taunting, so I ignored it based on my experiences of you from the past. But it seems you genuinely didn't understand it, so I'll clarify. First, the main points of my introduction to the subject of Rome in that message;
Razd writes: Because this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, because America is (or was) a beacon of hope for people around the world. Because America prided itself once on being a land for refugees to come and seek asylum from horrors of war and famine in other countries. Because they are human beings with human rights. So I expect people to come to America to find their dreams, and that the more desperate they are, the more willing they will be to use whatever means possible to get here. Because that is what people do when they can no longer live in their home country. I accept that as part of the price of being a land of freedom and liberty and justice and equality ... not just words ( ... that ALL men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights ... with liberty and justice for all). The U.S. didn't come into existence automatically, and it won't be preserved automatically. I think you're taking its existence for granted. A lot of people on the political left in the U.S. do today. It's happened before, the Roman Empire as only one example, and it can take hundreds of years for a fallen civilization to recover. It's been estimated that it was a thousand years before Europeans again achieved as high a standard of living as they had in Roman times. Razd, Jar, and most all those who desperately want the U.S. to be flooded with immigrants post like the U.S. is free of challenges and problems, and is just as fully equipped now as it was 100 years ago to welcome immigrants and give of itself to provide for them. They claim that even illegal immigrants will be more of a benefit to the U.S. than they cost, even though they aren't educated in and experienced in the responsibilities that go along with maintaining the standard of living that we still have in the U.S. That's the reason there are immigration laws. The wide-open-borders advocates don't fully believe this of course, they want immigrants, especially illegal ones, to come here so they can be recruited to vote for Democrats. They know they're close - the last election showed that with just a little more inner-city mob vote they can fix it so no Republican ever becomes president again. Links that show the basics of why the Roman Empire collapsed show a ~taking for granted~ attitude by both the citizens and government of their society much like todays Democrats take for granted the existence of today's U.S. government structure and standard of living.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
It's simple, they just didn't want you interfering with what they had planned for me. They expected me to respond to them in a defensive way to Theodoric's claim of expertise on the Roman Empire. It didn't work out for them.
I expect you'd like to show that Christianity itself had a lot to do with the fall of Rome. Of course I disagree, but a discussion of that here would clearly get too far off topic. If you'd like to start a new thread go ahead, but as always, my time is limited for a weeks or months long discussion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024