Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Little Too Early 2028 Presidential Election Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Clark Addison View Post

    Actually it was homosexuality.

    Or was that Greece? I need to find my old YM advisors.
    it was trans stuff

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Clark Addison View Post

      Actually it was homosexuality.

      Or was that Greece? I need to find my old YM advisors.
      To help the fall of the USA?
      “Every player dreams of being a Yankee, and if they don’t it’s because they never got the chance.” Aroldis Chapman

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by All-American View Post

        Let’s get some things straight.

        First, the article isn’t talking about the collapse of Rome. It is talking about the period covering the late republic to early empire. At the end of this period, Rome had another 300 to 400 years to go, depending on how you measure it, and some would say that it’s best days (e.g., the reign of the good emperors) were still ahead of it.

        Second, income inequality existed before this period. It also existed after this period. In fact, the most unequal period was arguably the best period—again, the good emperors. You can lament income inequality, but you still have to grapple with the curious correlation between inequality and broad prosperity.

        If you do want to talk about the fall of Rome, including the empire, you can basically pick your pet cause and argue that this is what it was all along. Everybody gets their piece in: immigration, over-industrialization, climate change, inflation, Christianity, you name it. Be suspicious of anyone who picks a cause and says that this, above all else, is what caused the collapse of Rome.
        Let's get something straight.

        Of course it is addressing a specific period, no one stated otherwise, nor is it suggesting it was the sole cause, and nor is it a pet cause, and neither is anyone putting undue faith in any one individual an their "episodic" perspective ... Holy cow are your post is daft supposition. In every arena of life we all grapple with interesting correlations, least of all, for those of us that are practicing LDS, in the scriptures.



        But hey—I get it ... the bubble here is great.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
          We need a mic drop emoji.
          For supposition on things that were never stated or intimated?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by tooblue View Post

            Let's get something straight.

            Of course it is addressing a specific period, no one stated otherwise, nor is it suggesting it was the sole cause, and nor is it a pet cause, and neither is anyone putting undue faith in any one individual an their "episodic" perspective ... Holy cow are your post is daft supposition. In every arena of life we all grapple with interesting correlations, least of all, for those of us that are practicing LDS, in the scriptures.



            But hey—I get it ... the bubble here is great.
            You, my friend, said: “Economic inequality was a significant factor in the collapse of Rome.”

            And in support, you cited discussion of a period leading up to Rome’s Golden Age.

            Holy cow indeed.
            τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

            Comment


            • #81
              Tooblue—> <—AA

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by All-American View Post

                You, my friend, said: “Economic inequality was a significant factor in the collapse of Rome.”

                And in support, you cited discussion of a period leading up to Rome’s Golden Age.

                Holy cow indeed.
                Yes, by your own admission it was a significant factor, among many significant factors, because there can be many significant factors ... and of course, contrary to your daft supposition, it was never stated it was the sole factor ...



                And yes, I linked to an article on a message board, in the context to a conversation about billionaires, so in other words, the link was on point but hey, keep fighting the good fight to protect the bubble!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by tooblue View Post

                  Yes, by your own admission it was a significant factor, among many significant factors, because there can be many significant factors ... and of course, contrary to your daft supposition, it was never stated it was the sole factor ...



                  And yes, I linked to an article on a message board, in the context to a conversation about billionaires, so in other words, the link was on point but hey, keep fighting the good fight to protect the bubble!
                  Your link takes us to a discussion of a period that preceded the “collapse of Rome” by more time than the United States has existed.

                  Maybe we should be talking about how the French and Indian wars led us to our current predicament.
                  τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by All-American View Post

                    Your link takes us to a discussion of a period that preceded the “collapse of Rome” by more time than the United States has existed.

                    Maybe we should be talking about how the French and Indian wars led us to our current predicament.
                    Maybe. But let's be clear, I posted a link to a story about wealth inequality in Rome in the context of the conversation in this thread talking about billionaires and wealth inequality in the US.

                    No where was it written, or intimated, that what is addressed in the liked article was the sole significant factor in the collapse of Rome and neither has anyone stated (at least as far as I have read), that the collapse of the US is imminent.

                    Further, it is not a stretch to look to that or any other "period" of Rome and draw comparisons, especially in the context of a message board conversation.

                    Comment


                    • #85

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Being gay is gay again. Apparently.

                        "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                        "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                        "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                          Being gay is gay again. Apparently.

                          That is cringe.

                          I think they're being too cute by half (is that the right use of the phrase?). Apparently there's a rumor that Johnson is gay, and he vociferously denies it.
                          "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                          "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                          - SeattleUte

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post

                            That is cringe.

                            I think they're being too cute by half (is that the right use of the phrase?). Apparently there's a rumor that Johnson is gay, and he vociferously denies it.
                            Bessent is openly gay. I don’t think being gay has the stigma in the MAGA crowd it used to, unless you get into the more fringe groups.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by chrisrenrut View Post

                              Bessent is openly gay. I don’t think being gay has the stigma in the MAGA crowd it used to, unless you get into the more fringe groups.
                              I think those fringe groups are the ones Benny Johnson associates with though.
                              "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                              "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                              - SeattleUte

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by chrisrenrut View Post

                                Bessent is openly gay. I don’t think being gay has the stigma in the MAGA crowd it used to, unless you get into the more fringe groups.
                                You've got elements of MAGA trying to get rid of gay marriage. Johnson was called out by Milo Yiannopalis, and Johnson never followed through his threatened slander lawsuit.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X