The rise of Christianity.
Political corruption, economic problems, and a series of leaders that — let's face it — were more interested in their personal gain than in the welfare of the common people.
Dependacy on foreign products.
Infastructure decline and decay.
Unbalanced trade.
Unfair taxes. Rich were undertaxed. Middle and poor were overburdened.
The government become increasingly run by the rich.
Racism.
Fear as a weapon used by leaders to control the masses.
The senate ruled for themselves and not the people.
The most important people put aside the interest of the nation in favor of their own.
Leading causes of the fall of the Roman empire. Do any of these sound familiar?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 64
"The commonly used expression, "Those who ignore history are bound (or doomed) to repeat it" is actually a mis-quotation of the original text written by George Santayana, who, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Rooted in the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many others to follow, his biography (1863-1952) and more contemporary intepretations and observations about man and life can be found at Wikipedia by searching for George Santayana. Stanford University online also provides an outstanding and much more detailed background on this important and profound philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist."
Life is too short. Too bad I didn't realize it by the half way point.
"I'm starting to feel like one of those people who keeps going back into an abusive relationship.
Life is too short. Too bad I didn't realize it by the half way point."
Face it, pal. We care.
Do we let things go to hell, or do we revolt?
Who is your favorite Changemaker?
sigh
Time to wake up and put the beer down. Turn off the TV. Get moving.
Yeah. That's why government needs to stay out of our lives. We got a bunch of idiots who never ran a business or institution successfully at any point in their lives. Yet they all think they know how because Mao and Che guides them during their feelings of inadequacies. Soviet Union died as well when Government spent their way into the abyss. There are plenty of historic lessons that tell everybody we are going down the wrong path.
Too much lead in your water, Bun-bun?
I am sure you know more about Che and Mao than I do. But that is beside the point. When you give government enough power to go to bed with CEOs of giant corporations you only add fuel to the fire you claim to be trying to put out. But you are a sheep. You repeat the beliefs and talking points that your idols give you.
I am opposed to government power. You are all for it when your idols win power. You are blind to the fact that Corporations run government just as much now, after 2 years of democrat control of congress and a year after a democrat president , then they ever did. If you were truly against corporations you would be for limiting government power. I don't think you know, let alone understand. what you are talking about sweetie.....
Yeah, it got the sheep to support a TARP and Stimulus bill didn't it?
"""The rise of Christianity."""
Actually Christianity has been on the decline in America for decades. Where the hell have you been?
"""The government become increasingly run by the rich."""
It always has. Ideology and personality separates out leaders and two political parties not wealth.
"""Unfair taxes. Rich were undertaxed. Middle and poor were overburdened."""
I don't think I ever heard you oppose any tax increase. Taxing soda, cigarettes, junk food, gas is a direct tax on the poor. Taxing corporation just raises the cost of products that the poor depend on. It's lose-lose for the downtrodden but they bring it upon themselves when politicians use hate, divisiveness, and class warfare to support their idiotic tax ideas.
Go for it, Buns!
I love Lori.
Welcome to OUR world.... You are damned if you do things, damned if you don't.
Glad you've taken over our burden!
The idea that America is somehow too 'clever' or 'armed' to go down the path of previous Empires? BWAHAAAAAAA!
Those are details, of course-- America's role in WWII was indispensable. Your grandfather didn't die in vain. But you were (indirectly) addressing Ishbel, so I figured it was fair to point that out.
My comment meant that all empires collapse. The above list is not particularly meaningful--some of the things on it are things that are always true and were of course the case during the rise of the Roman Empire, too; some were the result of the decline, not the cause of it; and one is chronologically off and is little more than a tendentious projection, similar to the claims that homosexuality or race-mixing (and giving too many bloody Barbarians Roman citizenship) caused the decline. Nope--it was the sheer size of the thing that was unsustainable.
I would never exclude the U.K.'s role in WW2. I as just saying that without America they would have lost. Sarah seems to be too stupid to know this. Where does she get her information? The U.K. Saved us all? That is just plain stupid. I can't think of a nicer word....
To me that looks like an ironic reference to the fact that the US did hesitate a bit about getting involved in that war, not a statement of alternative history.
Reading is a fine art indeed.
With respect, I would label it the rise of assholes who are false-flagging Christianity. But I would have to know your specific concerns to know for sure.
Liberals can rant, we can, we will.
I suggest you look up Arianism and the Monophysite heresy. They were disputes about the nature of the Holy Trinity and, in particular, Christ's human and divine components.
"Arianism, named after its originator Arius, an Alexandrian priest, insisted on a strong definition of the distinction between God and Christ (God the Father and God the Son). This view reflected the resurgence of Greco-Roman polytheistic concepts within Christianity; Arius, like the pagan Greek thinkers, tried to make distinctions and levels in the godhead. The western church was immediately anti-Arian, recognizing the danger inherent in such a retrogression to polytheism. The eastern church was badly split on the Arian question, with nationalistic feeling aggravating the situation. There had been a long-standing bitterness between Alexandria and the other great eastern cities. Not only did Alexandria resent and feel jealous of the new bishop of Constantinople, but the Egyptians had never been fully satisfied with imperial rule, and in the fourth century there was a great resurgence of nationalism in Egypt. It is clear that the Arian religious controversy was based, in large part, on national and cultural differences. The upshot of the dispute was that by the late fourth century the bishop of Rome and the emperor both took the side of the patriarch of Constantinople, increasing the desire of the Egyptians to break away from the empire. The Egyptians' nationalist feeling was expressed in Arianism in the fourth century and the Monophysite heresy in the sixth century. More than two centuries of bitterness culminated in the Egyptians offering only token resistance to the conquering Moslems in the seventh century."
One sees, ultimately, a political shift accompanied by the ascendancy of a completely different religion and not through the rejection of political rule in support of a doctrinal split in Christianity. That split was a "wedge issue" that reflected underlying political/cultural tension, and was, perhaps at worse, some convenient gasoline to throw on the fire.
The Monophysite conflict was a political football during Justinian's time. I think it's hard to say whether politics or conflict over church doctrine came first. Because the fine points of church doctrine were so important to people it was easy for political leaders to exploit the differences.
Power to Sarah A.!