Jump to content

Womens tears are making politics - and society - more feminine.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

There were lots of reasons for the fall of the empire, but when it comes to the inability to fund itself, that had more to do with the country being too big. e.

Absolutely untrue. The size of the empire played almost no role in it's demise. The byzantine or eastern roman empire was considerably larger and lasted for 1000 years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I'm the one who's angry...

I know. Thats what i said. Try and calm down a little.

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

There are better and more productive ways to cope with what's so obviously lacking in your life.  

Liiiike what? Jumping into conversations to pick a fight and crybaby about how the person is picking a fight? :) Getting angry and worked up because people on the internet can think and type faster than you? Those kinds of really productive activities that you do you mean?

Yeah - thanks. I don't think you've got a lot to be teaching anyone about leading a productive life :)  Say hi to your mom when she comes down to check on you kiddo :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Source?

Same one you gave when you insisted that the romans taxed people like we do and used it for infrastructure. oh... wait.... :)

Typical lying leftie - and always screams 'soucre' when they realize their wrong. I appreciate the admission tho :)

It's not hard to look up. I've actually read quite a bit about ancient rome, it's a fascinating topic. Not hard to look up the fact they didn't collect taxes from workers either as i said. Pretty common knowledge.

So - seeing as you obviously DON'T have a source for any of YOUR comments (because they were wrong) - it's fair to say you were lying and making it up as you went, wouldn't you say?

Tsk Tsk.... poor little leftie, hoisted by her own petard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Absolutely untrue. The size of the empire played almost no role in it's demise. The byzantine or eastern roman empire was considerably larger and lasted for 1000 years.

 

Like I said, there were a lot of reasons. Another issue was that the Western Roman Empire had more enemies. They shared borders with the Celts and Germans who had a culture of pirating and often clashed with the Romans. Whereas the Eastern Roman Empire had neighbors that didn't have that culture to the same degree, plus the geography of south-east Europe made them less vulnerable to attacks. They didn't have a land frontier nearly the size of their western counterpart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Same one you gave when you insisted that the romans taxed people like we do and used it for infrastructure. oh... wait.... :)

Typical lying leftie - and always screams 'soucre' when they realize their wrong. I appreciate the admission tho :)

It's not hard to look up. I've actually read quite a bit about ancient rome, it's a fascinating topic. Not hard to look up the fact they didn't collect taxes from workers either as i said. Pretty common knowledge.

So - seeing as you obviously DON'T have a source for any of YOUR comments (because they were wrong) - it's fair to say you were lying and making it up as you went, wouldn't you say?

Tsk Tsk.... poor little leftie, hoisted by her own petard.

 

So none? Wow. Damn. How embarrassing for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's a blatant lie.  They believe in age appropriate sex ed that's focused on how pregnancy works, dispelling myths (like you can't get preggers if you have sex standing up, one of my faves), STD's, and some basics about health and biology. 

I mean, you can lie if you want, but Republicans have been pretty consistent in wanted to eliminate sex ed. Florida just made news again, this time for trying to ban girls from asking questions about their periods.

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-declare-war-sex-education-seek-restrictions-public-schools-1777650

https://truthout.org/articles/post-roe-republicans-continue-to-take-aim-at-comprehensive-sex-ed-classes/

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/sex-education-belongs-schools-republicans-want-it-out-n1295332

https://truthout.org/articles/post-roe-republicans-continue-to-take-aim-at-comprehensive-sex-ed-classes/

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They just don't want to teach 4 year olds how to do anal. Which seems to upset your kind terribly for some reason.

Obvious projection. No serious politician or activist is saying we should do this. Though I'm sure y'all want to do that during your homeschooling sessions.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And second - if that WAS they're goal they just have to wait till the kids come home and abuse them then. It's not like kids are in school for 24 hours. So i would be a dense reason even IF it wasn't a disgusting thing to say.

But if kids are going to school, there's a better chance it's going to get out that you're abusing your kids. Again, kids who get sex ed are more likely to tell someone if they'd been abused.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Teachers don't give a crap. They're more likely to be abusing the kid anyway.

Nope, most abuse takes place in the home. And sure, some teachers do abuse kids, which is another reason why it's important to teach sex ed.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Riiiightt - no republicans were ever elected before that, i forgot. 

I'm talking about today's Republicans. Republicans of the past weren't this far-right on economic issues. So much of what the Republicans call "far-left radical Socialism" was the norm a few decades ago. Plus, when they started this far-right shift, Americans as a whole were more conservative. 

Today, the Republicans are in a tough place. They've gone to the extreme Right, while Americans as a whole have moved to the Left on both economics and social justice issues. That's why Republicans have to obsess over the one social justice issue that a lot of Americans are on the fence about, which is trans rights. And even that's a losing issue because trans rights do win out by a slight majority. This is also why Republicans have given up on winning democratically and are now focusing on voter restriction laws. Yes, Trump played a huge role in forcing the Republicans to embrace fascism, but they were on this path before Trump.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. IN fact AOC threw over 4000 great paying jobs in the can in new york with her leftie bullcrap and lack of understanding.

Most New Yorkers didn't want Amazon because of their demands, plus the impact it would have had on local businesses. You're not on a right-wing circle jerk site, here you actually have to expect to be called out on the things your Facebook meme page told you.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Actually campained for it.  With my gay  conservative candidate. At a convention. Where it was decided that the CPC should drop that because it was bull. And to keep his earlier promises when the CPC got in they had one vote in the house saying 'should we drop this or keep fighting about it" and it was 'drop it', and for 10 years it never came up again,

Is Zeitgeist your other account? I was talking to them when I said this, not you. Unless you really do have multiple accounts, then I guess I was talking to you.

Edited by Americana Antifa
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Like I said, there were a lot of reasons.

There really wasn't. It boils down to a deterioration in leadership due to a selection process and public that favored strength over intelligence or skill. Ascension by murder was common.

Initially when the first emperors rules they were wise and generally benificent. Julius looked at several slave and social reforms. Augustus was VERY intelligent and ended civil war. The next 5 were also good. Then it took a turn and by the end the roman leaders had completely run the place into the ground and left it fertile for the hoardes.

12 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Another issue was that the Western Roman Empire had more enemies.

They absolutely did not.

12 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

They shared borders with the Celts and Germans who had a culture of pirating and often clashed with the Romans.

I wouldn't call a large ocean a 'border'. And the celts were entirely pacified. And the germans weren't the issue, the migration period wouldn't happen till right at the end of the empire.

12 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

4Whereas the Eastern Roman Empire had neighbors that didn't have that culture to the same degree, plus the geography of south-east Europe made them less vulnerable to attacks. They didn't have a land frontier nearly the size of their western counterpart.

There was constant fighting.  Not a fan of history are you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Is that you talking into the mirror AGAIN! wow - well, i suppose most parrots love a good mirror :)

So no source? Damn. Esssh. Wow. Das ist sehr traurig. Yowziers.

Well, if you're curious: https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/06/30/investing-in-infrastructure-funding-roads-in-ancient-rome-and-today/?sh=5ca9398e5f83

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I wouldn't call a large ocean a 'border'.

That's the point. Because of the geography, it was easier for the Byzantines to defend their empire. They weren't right next to their potential enemies like the Western Romans.

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

And the celts were entirely pacified. And the germans weren't the issue, the migration period wouldn't happen till right at the end of the empire.

The Germans and Celts were still regularly launching attacks on Rome. The main reason for Hadrian's Wall was to keep out the Celts because they kept attacking.

Hadrian did what Trump never could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Well you're certainly proof that you can lie if you want.  Lets look at your 'sources'.

first - they don't want to ban it at all, they want to make it require a parents ok.  BZZZT - you lied.

Second - a SMALL group of republicans suggested banning sex ed in schools and NO ELECTED REPUBLICANS were interested or bound to it.  - BZZZZT!

Third - about a GOP nominee who FAILED TO GET NOMINATED!! - so the gop didn't agree with him. BZZZT

Forth is a repeat of an earier one. i guess you realiy do believe if you repeat a lie it'll become true - BZZZT

So - compelete bullshit across the board, and pretty much referring to only one small area of the country and not the national campaign.  If that's what you've got - you've proven it's not a popular opinion amongst the GOP.

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Obvious projection. No serious politician or activist is saying we should do this. Though I'm sure y'all want to do that during your homeschooling sessions.

Sure they do. Well - i suppose they might wait till they're more like 8 But yes. They do. And that's a problem.

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

But if kids are going to school, there's a better chance it's going to get out that you're abusing your kids. Again, kids who get sex ed are more likely to tell someone if they'd been abused.

No there isn't. Show me the stats that prove home schooled kids are abused more.

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Nope, most abuse takes place in the home. And sure, some teachers do abuse kids, which is another reason why it's important to teach sex ed.

Yep = teachers and coaches add a new layer of risk. Any home abuse will happen anyway but now teachers and coaches also get a crack at it.

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

I'm talking about today's Republicans. Republicans of the past weren't this far-right on economic issues. So much of what the Republicans call "far-left radical Socialism" was the norm a few decades ago. Plus, when they started this far-right shift, Americans as a whole were more conservative. 

Well not true of course. And they called regan a radical. :) Or were you suggesting we go back to lincon? The guy they're trying to cancel.

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Today, the Republicans are in a tough place. They've gone to the extreme Right, while Americans as a whole have moved to the Left on both economics and social justice issues.

They haven't. THey picked trump over hillary - and now that htey've got biden they're showing a hell of a lot of buyer's remorse.

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

Most New Yorkers didn't want Amazon because of their demands, plus the impact it would have had on local businesses. You're not on a right-wing circle jerk site, here you actually have to expect to be called out on the things your Facebook meme page told you.

Well that's a lie of course. They wanted their neighbourhoods fixed up they wanted high paying jobs, and all that was being offered. They also wanted the tax revenues. But - Cortez told them that they would be giving BILLIONS IN SUBSIDIES that could be BETTER SPENT ELSEHWERE to amazon.  Except - it was tax credits. So they'd pay less tax but employ 25,000 people. Now that they're not going to be there, there is NO tax. Cortez THOUGHT that the money was being paid TO them and screwed up big time.

So - now new york is broke. Less services, they can't keep it clean, they can't keep it safe, and people are fleeing it.

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Is Zeitgeist your other account? I was talking to them when I said this, not you. Unless you really do have multiple accounts, then I guess I was talking to you.

Awww muffin - do you get confused if two people talk at once????  I guess it must get hard to keep your lies straight when there's more than one person  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

So no source? Damn. Esssh. Wow. Das ist sehr traurig. Yowziers.

Well, if you're curious: https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/06/30/investing-in-infrastructure-funding-roads-in-ancient-rome-and-today/?sh=5ca9398e5f83

 

Ummm  - it literally says what i said. Pretty much word for word. No taxes - public funds which don't come from workers and private funds from rich people.

ROFLMAO - you didn't read it did you!!!! You read the headline and THOUGHT it proved your point and didn't read it!!!!

HAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHA - Holy shite kid :) Du bist sehr dumm. Bist du nicht! LOL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

That's the point. Because of the geography, it was easier for the Byzantines to defend their empire. They weren't right next to their potential enemies like the Western Romans.

You think land is harder to cross than an OCEAN!?!? Do you know where the celts lived? You figure they were just really good swimmers or something? The celts never bothered the romans AT ALL on the continent since the very begining of the founding of rome!  Certainly not 700 years later.

16 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

The Germans and Celts were still regularly launching attacks on Rome.

No, they were not. That's dumb. The celts were no where near rome.

16 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

The main reason for Hadrian's Wall was to keep out the Celts because they kept attacking.

Hadrian's wall was in ENGLAND!!!!  It had NOTHING TO DO with bararians attacking rome!!! Oh my god...

16 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Hadrian did what Trump never could.

He didn't have people as clueless as those on the left today are.  Imagine not even knowing what CONTINENT he built the wall on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ummm  - it literally says what i said. Pretty much word for word. No taxes - public funds which don't come from workers and private funds from rich people.

ROFLMAO - you didn't read it did you!!!! You read the headline and THOUGHT it proved your point and didn't read it!!!!

HAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHA - Holy shite kid :) Du bist sehr dumm. Bist du nicht! LOL

 

 

"Yet the great public funds he applied to this endeavor and other projects (such as an aqueduct) did not go unnoticed by his fellow senators or later historians. Diodorus Siculus notes, "[Caecus] expended the entire revenue of the state but left behind a deathless monument to himself, having been ambitious in the public interest" (20.36). Caecus famously coined the maxim, "Every man makes his own luck" (Fabrum esse suae quemque fortunae), but it must be said that a lot of that "luck" was achieved with strategic taxes and public funding."

If you're not going to read the article, at least do a better job of pretending you did.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

first - they don't want to ban it at all, they want to make it require a parents ok.  BZZZT - you lied.

Second - a SMALL group of republicans suggested banning sex ed in schools and NO ELECTED REPUBLICANS were interested or bound to it.  - BZZZZT!

Third - about a GOP nominee who FAILED TO GET NOMINATED!! - so the gop didn't agree with him. BZZZT

Forth is a repeat of an earier one. i guess you realiy do believe if you repeat a lie it'll become true - BZZZT

Keep you words soft and sweet, since you keep having to eat them. ?

So obviously, Republicans can't openly say they're against sex ed, since it's an unpopular stance. Same reason they pretended they didn't want to overturn Roe v Wade until they had the SCOTUS. Same reason they won't admit they're against democracy, instead they're slowly making it as hard as possible for working-class people to vote.

What the articles show is that Republicans are trying to chip away at sex ed. They can't outright ban it yet, but they can fall back on the "parents rights" bullshit as well as bad certain things that they have more support with. Florida Republicans trying to ban girls from learning about their period is clearly just the beginning in Florida, they're not going to stop if that becomes law.

I know you didn't read any of those articles, but at least try to read this one paragraph: "In neighboring Oklahoma, Republican lawmakers filed numerous bills this session looking to impose or otherwise expand on existing restrictions of certain expressions of gender identity and blocking teachers from teaching subjects like sex ed, with some seeking to outlaw a state-funded sex education initiative started in 2020 to address high teen birth rates in various hotspots around the state."

So they're not just using the "parents rights" stupidity, they're doing anything they can to restrict the subject until they can ban it.

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure they do. Well - i suppose they might wait till they're more like 8 But yes. They do. And that's a problem.

Name some Democrats or popular activists who want to teach anal to kids that young. Not random fringe cases that have nothing to do with mainstream politics, but actual legislation. The articles you didn't read are about Republicans trying to restrict sex ed, so not fringe cases.

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No there isn't. Show me the stats that prove home schooled kids are abused more.

?

Nice try. I didn't say home schooled kids are abused more. I said most child abuse takes place in the home.

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yep = teachers and coaches add a new layer of risk. Any home abuse will happen anyway but now teachers and coaches also get a crack at it.

Gawd, I hope you don't have kids.

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They haven't. THey picked trump over hillary - and now that htey've got biden they're showing a hell of a lot of buyer's remorse.

Nope. Trump won because of the electoral college. He never won the popular vote, never had majority support.

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's a lie of course. They wanted their neighbourhoods fixed up they wanted high paying jobs, and all that was being offered.

I know you won't read this, but if anyone else is curious: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-new-yorkers-opposed-amazon-hq2-2019-2

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So - now new york is broke. Less services, they can't keep it clean, they can't keep it safe, and people are fleeing it.

Oh yeah, NYC is broke. ?

Quote

Awww muffin - do you get confused if two people talk at once????  I guess it must get hard to keep your lies straight when there's more than one person

Projection. What actually happened is you got confused. On your other account, you said you wanted "family values." But then when I addressed that point, you answered as this character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Of course. But the Right wants no sex ed at all. They also want homeschooling, because most child abuse takes place in the home. And of course, they don't want teachers finding out that a child is being molested or otherwise abused, since they'd call CPS.

I'm not a liberal, but that's just not true. Liberals want to raise the minimum wage, build infrastructure in rural areas, and expand medicare while conservatives want to cut medicare, medicaid, social security.

Why do you think the right-wing establishment started obsessing over queer people and "wokeness" like three years ago? It's because Republicans have no issues that are popular with average Americans. They need to obsess over culture war nonsense because they don't want to talk about economic policy.

Let's say that's true. Let's say that behind the scenes, Democrats look down on blue-collar people. They would still be the better choice because their policies benefit the workers. Whereas Republicans only make policy that benefits the rich.

And when you say "family values," you mean you're against gay marriage. Cry all you want, but most Americans support gay marriage. When you say Democrats are a threat to democracy, that's just pure projection, since we both know which party tried to steal the 2020 election and then made voter-restriction laws all over America. Stop being a beta coward and we can discuss fascism vs democracy.

Republicans are the party of equal opportunity for all without regard to race, etc.  Democrats are the party of racism and paternalistic, “We know how you should live and what you deserve.”

As for your assessment of parents as generally being abusive towards their own children, I would say that’s exactly the leftist perspective, that the state should be raising kids because parents can’t be trusted to raise their own children.  This is actually the overriding leftist theme: People can’t be trusted with the freedom to make their own decisions.  The state knows better.

If a parent abuses a child, that of course requires outside interference, but these situations are dealt with and reported on individually.  Of course the left won’t see how bringing kids to drag queen reading hour might be inappropriate or how affirming sex change surgery for children might be abusive.  Clearly biological reality doesn’t matter to some of these people.

People elect governments and pay politicians to look out for their interests. Government is accountable to the people in a democracy.

As for economic opportunity?  People figured out pretty fast that the opportunity is in Republican states and are leaving the blue states in the thousands.  Instead of letting the state take more of workers’ money and using it to make people live according to dubious values, people are wisely choosing to keep more of their own money and to keep the creepy and depraved radical left-wing politicians as far away as possible.  ?

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents...

Back when a man who knew what day it is, was POTUS, my Czech mother-in-law was here visiting. One afternoon, she and I were watching CNN while Hilary-Billary was complaining about Trump having stolen the 2016 election. Now...ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of that, my mother-in-law, who speaks no English at all, pointed at the TV and said to me...

"That. That is why women should not be involved in politics."

Women use crying and screaming, like men use their fists. The problem here is that women resort to emotional outbreaks way too often, as they know the act does not provoke violence. Men will refrain from resorting to violent outbreaks because they know they will get hurt too. Hence...the logic of the parliamentary system.

There's a problem with the typical emotional outbursts of women. It's that eventually men get tired of it...and stop listening to them. This is now happening. The pushback on Cancel Culture and Climate Alarmism...the decline of BLM and ANTIFA are perfect examples.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Liiiike what? Jumping into conversations to pick a fight and crybaby about how the person is picking a fight? :) Getting angry and worked up because people on the internet can think and type faster than you? Those kinds of really productive activities that you do you mean?

I'm "angry" because you "TyPE FAsTeR" is the sort of puerile logic that a no-life internet neet would use, I suppose.  It makes absolutely no sense, but what else can you really say when we know you're pounding out 30+ posts a day and into the wee hours of the night?

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not a fan of history are you.

He says, immediately before pounding up such clueless ramble as:

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Initially when the first emperors rules they were wise and generally benificent. Julius looked at several slave and social reforms. Augustus was VERY intelligent and ended civil war. The next 5 were also good.

?

Yes, let's see:

1)  Tiberius the absentee child-molestor, who left a power-mad Praetorian in charge that murdered and purged his personal rivals (including Tiberius' son and heir) until he was stopped, leaving Tiberius' heir as

2)  Caligula  ?

3)  Claudius - the cripple, and probably the only out of the next 5 who couldn't be deemed a complete failure

4)  Nero - of legendary villainy

5)  Galba - Tyrant and murderer, lasted 3 years before being assassinated, which ushered in a new period of civil war

ALSO this gem:

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And the celts were entirely pacified. And the germans weren't the issue, the migration period wouldn't happen till right at the end of the empire.

Which is also categorically false, given that Rome had to station 3 full legions to hold Southern Britannia and protect it from celtic rebellion, not to mention invasion and raiding by Irish and Scottish celts outside their borders. 

As for the Germans, this is just too stupid to really get into.  The Germans were always a massive problem, and remained a massive problem all the way to Rome's demise.  The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was one of their biggest military disasters and the bulk of Western Rome's legions were always stationed along the Rhine/Danube frontier facing off against Germanic tribes. 

It's fascinating how confidently you'll bluster about shit you know nothing about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

"Yet the great public funds he applied to this endeavor and other projects (such as an aqueduct) did not go unnoticed by his fellow senators or later historians. Diodorus Siculus notes, "[Caecus] expended the entire revenue of the state but left behind a deathless monument to himself, having been ambitious in the public interest" (20.36). Caecus famously coined the maxim, "Every man makes his own luck" (Fabrum esse suae quemque fortunae), but it must be said that a lot of that "luck" was achieved with strategic taxes and public funding."

If you're not going to read the article, at least do a better job of pretending you did.

 

Oh my god - you're just dumb enough to dig yourself deeper :)  I told you were public funds came from.  They don't come from "taxes" :)   "Strategic" taxes is taxing other countries.  :)

Holy shit kid - why don't you just drool on the keyboard if you're going to be that stupid

Here ya go - it's just painful to watch you making such a joke of yourself :)

 

Quote

 

The Riches from Conquests Allowed for Tax Free Living

By 167 BC, the Republic had enriched itself greatly through a series of conquests. Gains such as the silver and gold mines in Hispania created an excellent source of revenue for the state, and a much larger tax base through its provincial residents.

By this time, Rome no longer needed to levy a tax against its citizens and looked only to the provinces for collections.

 

That's your "Public Funds" and Strategic taxes  :) Raiding other countries and "Taxing" them by stealing their stuff :)

Even later when there was "tax reform" they taxed the provincial prefects - not the people. If you had a territory under your control that had 100 people and 100 acres of land then you paid x dollars per acre and y dollars per person - but the PEOPLE didn't pay that. That was basically rent or tribute and the provincial leader was supposed to earn enough money from working the land to pay it, the people didn't get taxed and nor did the income.

So - ya done being a loser yet? :) I hope not - it's fun to watch :)

Oh - final bonus slap in your face:

Taxes in the Roman Empire, in comparison with modern times, were certainly no more excessive. In many cases they were far less per capita than anything we can compare to today.

However, the strain of tax revenues was heavily placed on those who could most influence the economy, and it would ultimately have dire consequences.

The economic struggles that plagued the late Imperial system, coupled with the tax laws, certainly played a part in the demise of the world's greatest empire.

So they "overtaxed" the wealthy landowners and politically influential and not the people in general - and it was a disaster :)

I guess your idea of 'eat the rich' really doesn't work, does it! This has been utterly hilarious  to watch, You're learning so much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

I'm "angry" because you "TyPE FAsTeR"

Nobody cares why you're angry - just calm down a ilttle. I can hear you foaming at the mouth from here. Yeash - i get that you've "lost" a few discussions where i demonstrated you're not all that bright but just do better, don't have a hissy fit.

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, let's see:

1)  Tiberius the absentee child-molestor, who left a power-mad Praetorian in charge that murdered and purged his personal rivals (including Tiberius' son and heir) until he was stopped, leaving Tiberius' heir as

2)  Caligula  ?

3)  Claudius - the cripple, and probably the only out of the next 5 who couldn't be deemed a complete failure

4)  Nero - of legendary villainy

5)  Galba - Tyrant and murderer, lasted 3 years before being assassinated, which ushered in a new period of civil war

Did you have a point? I noted they had very few civil wars.  Do you think they DID have lots of civil wars? Or are you just saying that romans weren't very nice people? Because if you think THAT'S bad you should read about some of the ones who came before and after :)

But thanks - it's always nice to have a free laugh at something first thing in the morning ;)

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

ALSO this gem:

Which is also categorically false, given that Rome had to station 3 full legions to hold Southern Britannia and protect it from celtic rebellion, not to mention invasion and raiding by Irish and Scottish celts outside their borders. 

We're talking about attacks on 'rome'.  She literally said that they attacked Rome regularly. Did you think rome was in brittian?

And sure - they had to have troops to KEEP them in line, but ONLY 3 legions kept the entire region under control. The celts didn't drive rome out of england did they :) the romans just couldn't afford to be there anymore

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

As for the Germans, this is just too stupid to really get into.  The Germans were always a massive problem, and remained a massive problem all the way to Rome's demise.

 

Not really kiddo :P  rome never lost a conflict with the germanic tribes and while they'd raid and such here and there they never threatened rome. At least until there wasn't a rome any more.

Swing and a miss. About the best you could say is that poor management at home lead to shortages of money which made it harder to keep up the armies that stopped raids and the like.

LOL - read a book before looking THAT stupid kiddo :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody cares why you're angry - just calm down a ilttle. I can hear you foaming at the mouth from here. Yeash - i get that you've "lost" a few discussions where i demonstrated you're not all that bright but just do better, don't have a hissy fit.

Did you have a point? I noted they had very few civil wars.  Do you think they DID have lots of civil wars? Or are you just saying that romans weren't very nice people? Because if you think THAT'S bad you should read about some of the ones who came before and after :)

But thanks - it's always nice to have a free laugh at something first thing in the morning ;)

We're talking about attacks on 'rome'.  She literally said that they attacked Rome regularly. Did you think rome was in brittian?

And sure - they had to have troops to KEEP them in line, but ONLY 3 legions kept the entire region under control. The celts didn't drive rome out of england did they :) the romans just couldn't afford to be there anymore

Not really kiddo :P  rome never lost a conflict with the germanic tribes and while they'd raid and such here and there they never threatened rome. At least until there wasn't a rome any more.

Swing and a miss. About the best you could say is that poor management at home lead to shortages of money which made it harder to keep up the armies that stopped raids and the like.

LOL - read a book before looking THAT stupid kiddo :)

Books? Libbies don't need no stinking books! They have Donna leMon and Co. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2023 at 10:29 PM, BeaverFever said:

Those services were mostly conceived of and introduced by men and supported by male voters .

I don't think anyone here is arguing there should be no social services. But there are, or ought to be limits based on our ability to pay for them. Men seem more aware of this than women.

On 4/4/2023 at 10:29 PM, BeaverFever said:

Constant obsessing over debt at all costs is a relatively recent political trend

Running up huge debts is a relatively recent thing, too. Previously they only happened during wars, and after the war we tried to pay them down again. We're running up huge debts during peacetime, during good times and bad. And the higher the debt rises the more concerning it is. 

On 4/4/2023 at 10:29 PM, BeaverFever said:

Conservatives have always skewed male

Yes, and the article helps to explain why. So why are you arguing with the points of the article?

On 4/4/2023 at 10:29 PM, BeaverFever said:

So while there’s a bit of a chicken and egg argument here, rather than suggest female voters are introducing “big spending” a more accurate explanation might be that male voters are abandoning “big spending”. 

But you just pointed out conservatism has always skewed male and conservatism is well known as an ideology which prefers smaller government (and thus lower taxes) and more balanced books.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...