JamesHackerMP

I know that there were other barbarian nations on the move, like the huns, and the Goths, for example, were on the run from them. Still though, if they threatened the eastern and western portions of the empire alike, why did the west fall and the east didn't? The threat to both halves was the same, perhaps there was poor leadership among the western augusti? Some of these barbarians claimed they were simply viceroys under imperial sovereignty, even if it was more a constitutional fiction. Emperor Zeno (474-491, with a brief interlude) didn't care for Odovacer taking over Italy and calling himself King, so he invited Theodoric the Ostrogoth to invade Italy, take it for himself, but swear fealty to Zeno as the legitimate emperor (as his viceroy). Coins under the reign of both barbarian leaders depicted not them, but the Emperor Zeno. Theodoric still appointed two consuls annually, and the Roman Senate continued to govern the bureaucratic machinery of Italy. Apparently, Theodoric also stopped calling himself "Patrician" of the Romans, and decided on calling himself King of Italy eventually. At first, it doesn't seem that much changed, did it? But Italy somehow was independent enough to tempt eastern emperor Justianian I to reconquer Italy for the "Roman" Empire (a Roman Empire which doesn't include Rome is pretty absurd, eh?) I'm thinking that both empires encountered the same threats, but the eastern empire had better leadership. Am I wrong about that? After all, the Goths invaded the east as far as the Peloponese (today's Greece). They almost got to Constantinople, in fact. "Byzantine" history, at least in the exclusive sense, probably begins with the reign of the Emperor Zeno. It was under him the west finally fell to the barbarians and the "Roman" empire became exclusively an eastern thing. Isn't it freakin wild, though, that the first and last rulers of Rome were named Romulus? MInd blown.

Thanks so far for the answers, but ignore the other thread, somehow it duplicated itself. This is the real one!

It was said above that "Americans" are ignorant bigots. I find that view itself to be bigoted. P.S., only 46% of those who voted in 2016 voted for Donald Trump. But this thread isn't specifically about Donald Trump. There are plenty of those. You can be a decent person and still end up having a twat for a President.

I have been reading the Byzantium books by Viscount (John Julius) Norwich, which is about, as the title implies, the Byzantine Empire. The book begins with the birth of Constantine, and the division of the Roman Empire (in 286) between several different co-emperors, by Diocletian, who had come to the conclusion that one emperor wasn't enough to govern such a large bit of real estate. Naturally, Lord Norwich includes a huge chunk of the first volume of this three-volume work to the latter days of the western Roman Empire, since the Roman Empire was the embryo from which the uniquely eastern Empire was born. But he doesn't really cover (or maybe I just missed it) the $64,000 question: why did the western empire collapse? Why did it fall into chaos by 476, when the eastern half would endure, in some form or another, until 1453? It was the same empire, technically; whether there were two augusti or just one was simply a matter of administrative convenience. Zosimus, a pagan, summed up the whole thing in one word: Christianity. Edward Gibbon seems inclined to agree. I personally dont. But I still don't understand the situation entirely. Is there a history buff in the house??

LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!! "Pippa, you've got such a nice arse..."

Betsy, do you think you could refrain from CAPITALIZING EVERYTHING UNDER THE GOD**** SUN? IT'S CONSIDERED TO BE IN POOR TASTE. JUST LIKE HOMOPHOBIA. Maybe, just maybe, people will be able to engage you, because it won't come off as shouting. So what part of the bible says that homosexuality is actually evil? Give me a few quotes, chapter and verse. I've got the book right here, complete with annotations. Good grief indeed.

Reminds me of that episode of Family Guy where the guys decide to confront God, to keep him from interfering with football. "God should stay where he belongs...like telling people where they can stick their wieners...."

No, but you brought up the whole thing. If you won't answer the questions you bring up, then I have nothing to add. With all due respect, betsy, this isn't a discussion thread it's a sermon. I signed on to Maple Leaf Web to have the former, not the latter.

At the risk of getting off topic, we didn't defeat Maoist China. Mao died of natural causes; it took his successor and enemy, Deng Zhouping, to overturn his economic system and bring China into the later 20th century. An empire, by the way, doesn't have to be multiethnic. Japan was an empire, ruled by an emperor and, with very little ethnic changes since then, is as close to a true "nation state" as the world will ever come. I think the difference between a kngdom and an empire is just what they call it, and what they call the head of state. The head of state of Austria-Hungary was called Emperor-King (Emperor of the Lands Represented in the Imperial Council [Austria] and King of the the Lands of the Holy Crown of St. Stephen [Hungary]). Part of the reason for the ethnic unrest wasn't so much the Germans in Austria, but the Hungarians: they turned out to guard their precious 50% rule of the empire even more jealously than the ethnic Germans guarded theirs. I think administrative inefficiency could have contributed. There were very few "joint" ministries, so effectively there were two cabinets, two prime ministers, two different parliaments, in two different locations. There were no passports for a subject of the Emperor/King: you carried an Austrian passport if you were a resident of Cisleithania, a Hungarian passport if you were a resident of Transleithenia. Every five or ten years (I forget which) the customs union between the two halves had to be renegotiated between the Imperial Council and the Diet of Hungary. One can only imagine the administrative paralysis caused by two different bodies of civil servants, hundreds of miles away from each other. But there have been other multiethnic states as someone brought up. Even ones that were ruled by strong monarchies. Russia for example. Yes, that collapsed, but not entirely. It might had a civil war, but the war reunited the Russian state (more or less) and in the end, they changed governments, more or less. The revolutions of 1917 had nothing to do with ethnic unrest.

I'm not sure how to respond to that...except to say that it is itself bigoted.

Care to answer any of those questions?

Betsy, in the very same breath you admit the Bible isn't a scientific text, you say that it's writings are being "proven true" by science. That is a contradiction. If you're talking about something being proven true by science, you are talking about science having the support of the bible. Which means you're using it as a scientific text, albeit indirectly. Also, you've already made up your mind. In your original post, you stated you wanted to discuss the issue and find out if that is the case. You already made your mind up, however. Is that a "discussion" at all? More of a lecture, to me. Also, is your "rebuttal" (On page one) coming from a conservative Christian source, or a more liberal one? Because it all depends on whom you ask. There is room for interpretation of the Bible (especially when you do not speak ancient Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. yourself.) Another thing: I didn't choose to be gay. If you were gay you'd know that. I know very few gays who say they actually "chose" it. Why would God make people gay only to condemn them to hell? Sounds a bit like the Calvinist "predestination" theory (which I understand conservative Christians in the U.S. reject.)

You'd be wrong to say there were never special interests running things. It appears to be a recent epidemic but it only appears that way. Probably because what to us is a "special interest" of today wasn't to the Congress of yesterday. Slavery vs. abolitionists, agrarians vs. industrial barons, railroads, etc., are no longer special interests. But at the time they were (probably the advent of the word "special interest" may be a creation of the last 40 years, but that still means there have always been special interests of some sort). One wonders, however if other democracies, like Canada or Germany, both of whom claim to be not run by special interests, really are just as much (maybe they hide it better). The founding fathers weren't prophets. They did the best they could under the circumstances. We forget that the political climate of the United States of the 1780s was quite poisonous, hence the purpose of completely replacing the constitution after just over a decade. Overall, I think it still is a better system for America than some more "modern" democratic constitutions. And least it's much shorter to read. I am suspicious of constitutions that are so long the average Joe believes that "it's for the lawyers to read." It's four large pages of parchment plus the 27 amendments; according to Wikipedia, 7,591 words (4,543 in the original, un-amended document). Hard to know what's in the constitution if it's too long (India's is about 145,000 words). A friend of mine took a cruise to Norway, some fellow passengers from Germany mentioned they didn't understand the electoral college. I think that probably mystifies foreigners quite a bit--it certainly mystifies more than a few Americans, I wouldn't doubt it. But to me, what differentiates us from other western democracies is: the belief in those other countries that democracy is all about majority rule. In America, we hold individual liberty as more important than majority rule. It may sound like a contradiction to people outside the U.S., but here it isn't. Majority rule is all well and good, but what bloody good does it do if your rights are trampled on? And the powers-that-be can say "hey, we voted by majority rule to take your house away to build a hyperspace bypass; accept it and don't complain!" In the US, however, just because your party won the election doesn't give it the chance to do everything it wants, even if it was the "choice of the people" via majority vote. The American view is that a bill of rights places limits on the government's ability to act which is, in turn, the choice of the majority to act. If majority rule is paramount, the 51% of society can run roughshod over the rights and privileges of the 49% (or less). Bills of rights don't protect the majority's right to act, they're supposed to protect the minority from a possibly-rapacious majority. Our founding fathers did not see majority rule as commensurate with individual liberty. And thank God for that. The state legislatures in southern states would never, ever have done anything about civil rights unless the courts forced it on them--it wasn't "democratic" but it was certain "more fair". The vast majority of people in those states didn't want black people, for example, to go to good schools with their white children. The minority had to force the majority to change its tune. And that's something they just don't get in a lot of other countries. There is no need to guarantee "group liberty" in a constitution or bill of rights. The fact that this view is disagreed with by other democratic societies quite frankly scares me a bit. Another thing: I think other countries' citizens don't look at the big picture when they see U.S. politics. They look at Washington, Washington, Washington; and forget that there are 50 state capitals (and the DC city council) operating. They may be less powerful vis a vis Washington than in 1789; but looking at Washington as the end-all be-all of U.S. politics is missing at least 50% of the picture. The states even have their own constitutions; the federal constitution sets no guidelines as to how the states are to organize themselves (if I'm not mistaken, the 1867 Constitution Act, or British North America Act, does give some guidelines). Washington does not determine our every move in life as the national capitals of others countries do, even some democratic ones. (Canada may be different, though, since it is also a federal structure). This surprises people in other countries, as one of the articles i read mentions.

"...Mordor." ROFL

Interesting. Of course, you don't see too many Americans interested in the local politics of other countries, either. I'm unique among some of my friends in actually being interested in foreign internal politics. One wonders, however, how I would be viewed in, for example, Germany if I said "I like the Social Democrats' candidate for chancellor..." or some such variation on that hypothetical theme.

Another one... https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/10/21/how-america-is-different-from-other-democracies But I'v given up on links of how the US political system is viewed. Most of the links seem to be about the 2016 election in general and what people's impressions are of it. Hard to find anything about American politics in general, or the U.S. political system.

I've done a little looking on Google about this. In this first story, it surprised me how much foreigners are skewed toward the Democratic Party. Fortunately, a few have refused to actually take sides (which seems wiser when you're trying to view another country's politics). http://www.politics1.com/intl.htm I haven't been able to find much more, even with a search, that didn't come from foreign leaders (except the first link). So since we're on a Canadian website here, how do you view the U.S. political system as seen from Canada? What do most Canadians know about American politics or history? Do they base their judgments on actual knowledge, or just assumptions, rumors and conjecture? How much of the former (actual knowledge) do Canadians possess? And how much the latter (assumption, rumor, conjecture)?

OMG, ROFL. Nice one! The purpose of the second amendment had to do with wanting the citizenry armed so that they could provide manpower for the several state militias. Back in the day we didn't have a large standing army. The U.S. "Army" was a mostly temporary construct during time of war, and most of its manpower came from calling up the state militias into the service of the United States. When they would present themselves for service, they needed to have their own weapons. THAT was the purpose of leaving the citizenry armed. Liberals and Conservatives alike mistake the purpose of the amendment. It's in the same sentence as "militias", in fact. Some Americans are terrified that if you disarm the population then the government will be tyrannical and the people rendered helpless against a totalitarian nightmare. While there is evidence to support that in other countries where tyrannical governments have disarmed the population, I do not think it is entirely operative in this case.

You seem to believe that ISIS was created by the United States. For what purpose would the U.S. create an organization that would roll over Iraq, and threaten the regimes in the region which are U.S.-supported?

Oops....OK I am obviously confusing Alexander with someone else...my profound apologies.

In the States, they're removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 and putting on Harriet Tubman. However, I must say that Tubman is well-deserving of being on the $20. Not that Jackson isn't--yes, he owned a crap-ton of slaves, but on the assets side of the ledger the man did start the process of expanding the electorate (hence the "era of Jacksonian Democracy") and is more or less the founder of the modern Democratic Party. He was also kind of a "badass" to boot. But he owned slaves, so that puts a bit on the liabilities side of the ledger. They were going to put her on the $10 (where Alexander Hamilton is currently) but of course, the multicultural musical Hamilton came out, and the idea was scrapped. Hamilton was never a slave owner, to boot. I agree that multiculturalism can go too far. MacDonald is your first prime minister. He should--if I got a vote on this which I don't--be on some of the money. The queen has to be on the coins, so you cannot use those. Of course, how long we're going to be using paper money is also a matter that may affect this debate. It sounds like your present administration likes to force his views on Canadians--that's just a view from where I'm sitting, I don't have the right to vote in your elections.

It's part of adulthood to disagree with other people even when they have provided you with the same information.

Congrats, btw, to Impact, who was dead on about Tillerson hanging by a thread! Opened the envelope and sure enough it was Tillerson.

TPLC? Oh, "tin pot little country"....ha! I almost forgot about that one when I started to type this sentence. Forgot you were a fellow Yes Minister fan. Sessions...there's another one ya want to see go. In fact, most of the cabinet. I like General Mattis, though (Defense). I've met Democrats who say they respect him as the only one who's worth it and isn't doing anything really bizarre.

I have to respectfully disagree with your third sentence: people can still disagree even with the same information. Not all information is 100% certain, and it's human nature to disagree even when you look at the same thing. For example, we can look at the same picture but describe it differently; it may mean different things to each of us. If I am incorrect about what I just said, how come there are so many different religions on Earth? Or so many different forms of government? Or--within a particular government--so many parties and factions? Are they ALL hypocrites? You see; it's not that black-and-white! Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a liar, or a hypocrite. All of us would like to BELIEVE that we're telling only the truth, therefore anyone who disagrees with us must be lying. But that belief doesn't allow for the fact that human beings can be wrong, and that humans--finite beings--cannot see all ends. I'm very sorry you think I'm a liar or a hypocrite for disagreeing with you, and therefore worthless to talk to. I may have my faults, but you have your own faults. Are you perfect? Is any human being perfect? Mostly, I am sorry that you don't think I am worth talking to because we have disagreements. I'd like to think that even with that disagreement, we can find some common ground somewhere.