GOP tax scam

Post Reply New Topic

And, also of note: all that progress can go *poof* up in smoke within a decade. Progress isn't linear, it's a series of steps forward, a few steps back, a few more forward again, etc. Some civilizations in the past have taken more steps backward than they have forward, Rome from 380 to it's fall and subsequent dark age being the prime example. Progress is tiring, citizens must constantly fill the well, so to speak, to keep it moving, regression on the other hand doesn't even require an antagonist, it can come as easy as citizens simply not filling the well. Point being: one should never take progress as a foregone conclusion, it's not, it takes work, and a healthy dose of cynicism prevents complacency.

I guess the fall of Rome was a step backward ... but it actually wasn't a massive step backward.

In ancient Rome, there were philosophers ... but we need to remember that most people in Ancient Rome weren't philosophers. Most Ancient Roman people were poor and uneducated. Additionally, the Roman Republic was a plutocracy disguised as a democracy and the Roman Empire was an outright dictatorship.

The fall of Rome was arguably a step forward for the Germanic people who had suffered under Roman rule.

People love to talk about the Medieval Europe as though progress ground to a halt during that period. In reality, progress in Ancient Rome was already very slow. The fall of Rome wasn't that big of a loss.

They might not all be alt-right nazi trolls, some might be Russian spy trolls as has also been claimed.

I agree with what you say over half the time Darth, but this isn't one of those. The fall of Rome was a huge event, one of the most significant in history, and the loss of institutions and knowledge from it was devastating to average people, who saw their lives get a whole lot tougher when that stability disappeared. And the truth is Europe never actually recovered from Rome's fall, they got lucky in 1453 when Constantinople fell (that very last of Rome), that the books, art work, and history stored there were transported to Italy to be rediscovered thus sparking the Renaissance. Without that fortuitous event Europe very well could still be what we would currently deride as 'third world' countries.

Second, the northern frontier of Rome ended at the Danube river, well below the line that the Germanic tribes controlled. Aside from small pockets of land that were traded back and forth through war, the Romans never controlled the northern Germans, so they never 'suffered' under Roman rule. They were actually the one nut Rome couldn't crack.

Third, yes, all nations are the same with a small caste of philosophers, rulers, and a large swath of uneducated people with little power Marx would call 'the masses'. But to say that the 'masses' suffered under Roman rule is cherry picking, generally focusing on the strict rule of law in Rome (called barbaric by today's standards), and their habit of razing dissident cities (also called barbaric by today's standards). The problem with this line of thought is that doesn't take the actual time period into account. The Parthians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and even Greeks had laws that were just as strict, and each of those empires also had a habit of razing cities. It was a product of the times, not something Rome invented on their own. Furthermore, that line of reasoning also fails to account for the benefits the 'masses' received from Rome: clean water via aquaducts, stable food supply (there were famines, but near as frequent and large as previous time periods/empires), and a trade system that spanned across Europe providing citizens with not just exotic goods, but jobs as well.

from another thread (bolding mine).


The problem with the internet is that it only takes 3 seconds to look up a previous comment, consistency is king.

Yeah but I was referring to certain complaints about the president who was subject and object. Context is king.

Then let's get meta: regardless of intent, it's still poisoning the well by stirring up sensationalist rhetoric. Sometimes it's best to just let that crap settle to the bottom where it belongs. And yes, I've stirred that pot before as well, many times in fact, but I've also never claimed I'm an independent moderate observer just 'calling it as I see it' with no agenda whatsoever. If you're gonna play that card it's a higher standard, a much higher standard, one that forces audiences to really hone in on inconsistency.

Good grief you can be such a windbag. I comment on the sensational rhetoric that's already in play. Poisoning the well, mudding the waters, really means I'm a turd in the trumpmaina punchbowl. As much as you want there to be exclusive one sided views being expressed, there are going be those who have differing viewpoints. You not liking the manner and style in which Ideliver my view of things, does not concern me.

But don't let that stop you from going on and on about me. In two threads now no less.

Sorry you don't like being held to standards. Next time don't plant the flag and people won't be aiming to burn it down. And nowhere did I mention Trump, you keep bringing him up though, which really begs the question: why does a self proclaimed 'straight shooter' with no agenda keep using Trump as a shield to hide behind his own rhetoric?

I'm not concerned about meeting your standards and it's quite pretentious of you to try imposing them on anyone. Nor do I have to explain myself to you.

That's the thing though, they're not my standards, they're yours: every time you claim you're unbiased and a 'straight shooter' then turn around with partisan talking points you're not living up to those initial standards. And yes, I will call it out every single time.

Knock yourself out, make me your special interest. I absolutely couldn't care less.

However when it comes to being unbiased, I don't believe I have referred to myself as such. And if I did it was an incorrect choice of words. I am obviously biased regarding my views of liberalism. I have said that I seek what are considered unbiased or at least the least biased news sources like Reuters and AP, because I don't what my bias or objectivity to be shaped by someone or something else. I want it to belong to me and be mine.

Regarding me supposedly proclaiming myself to be a "straight shooter", a word search of my posting history shows that only you have used the term "straight shooter", not me.

Now I'll point out the flaw in what I perceive to be your reasoning. And that is it seems to me you are implying that if I'm con regarding one thing I must therefore pro regarding something else. If I'm critical of Catholicism for instance, does that mean I must be Protestant, or does it mean I must be LDS, or perhaps Jehovah's Witness, or perhaps atheist. Or perhaps I'm none of those and I'm just simply critical of Catholicism out of my own distinctive individuality.

^^ That's a sly attempt to sound like you have no agenda, your posting history differs wildly from that statement. As for 'special interest', not even close, if you were a special interest I'd have your entire posting history printed out, highlighted for inconsistencies, catalogued by date, and annotated with counter evidence and I'd just info dump it all. As it is I just like seeing you dance, anyone that's inconsistent I like seeing dance. You're more than welcome to walk away, but you dance every time I ask, so where's the problem?

a certain person did say "how could anybody not love him" [tRump] in another thread. it's all makin' my head spin.

I know, it's part of the alt-right way: "whatever I claim now is truth, don't look at what I said yesterday, that was a 'joke', but trust what I'm saying right now is the truth." Until it's tomorrow, and that 'truth' changes. It's actually quite comical, but I can't laugh because that thought process has led to some truly sick people getting power.

Yes, I'd expect this "truth of the day" to be particularly hard on Aspies who have rigid thinking.