Bush is a hero
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175790 Mar 15, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>With all due respect, I wouldn't rule out the Republicans making an impeachment attempt after the fall elections, especially if they take the Senate.
There's been a lot of noise about it, more wishful thinking than anything else to this point - but given the House Republican leadership's limited ability to control its members, anything is possible.
I mean, given the chatter among House and Senate Republicans ... are you that confident?
I don't see a reason for you to be.
Unless democrats and the bulk of the population are fully on board and encouraging an impeachment, I think republicans are begging for problems if they pursue it. In a climate where one party gets to call the other party "racist" for opposing Obama's policies, I can only imagine the uproar if they tried to dethrone the guy. You don't impeach the historically elected, first black president without running a huge risk of backlash and headlines citing "MODERN DAY LYNCHING IN WASHINGTON!"

By virtue of his skin color, Obama was never properly vetted or scrutinized as a candidate in the first place. His lack of qualifications should have kept him in the "do not even consider it" category but the country was in the mood to make history and play "wouldn't it be neat if....." And if shutting down the government by the republicans raised a ruckus and had lasting negative effects on republicans, I think trying to give the boot to the affirmative action elected black man, has the potential to blow the roof off.

Republicans paid a steep price for Clintons impeachment and look at him now. That effort boomeranged. He's the Grand Poobah of the democrat party, a revered elder statesman and his wife is considering a run for the presidency and may get in because of her gender, who she's married to and a dubious resume.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175792 Mar 15, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless democrats and the bulk of the population are fully on board and encouraging an impeachment, I think republicans are begging for problems if they pursue it. In a climate where one party gets to call the other party "racist" for opposing Obama's policies, I can only imagine the uproar if they tried to dethrone the guy. You don't impeach the historically elected, first black president without running a huge risk of backlash and headlines citing "MODERN DAY LYNCHING IN WASHINGTON!"
By virtue of his skin color, Obama was never properly vetted or scrutinized as a candidate in the first place. His lack of qualifications should have kept him in the "do not even consider it" category but the country was in the mood to make history and play "wouldn't it be neat if....." And if shutting down the government by the republicans raised a ruckus and had lasting negative effects on republicans, I think trying to give the boot to the affirmative action elected black man, has the potential to blow the roof off.
Republicans paid a steep price for Clintons impeachment and look at him now. That effort boomeranged. He's the Grand Poobah of the democrat party, a revered elder statesman and his wife is considering a run for the presidency and may get in because of her gender, who she's married to and a dubious resume.
There ya go. And when you factor in that the general public would see it as yet another shameless hyper-partisan grandstanding ploy with no grounds whatsoever to proceed, like the eternal inquisitions of The Darrell Issa Comedy Troupe, well, maybe Republicans are waking up a little. Just a little.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175793 Mar 15, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless democrats and the bulk of the population are fully on board and encouraging an impeachment, I think republicans are begging for problems if they pursue it. In a climate where one party gets to call the other party "racist" for opposing Obama's policies, I can only imagine the uproar if they tried to dethrone the guy. You don't impeach the historically elected, first black president without running a huge risk of backlash and headlines citing "MODERN DAY LYNCHING IN WASHINGTON!"
By virtue of his skin color, Obama was never properly vetted or scrutinized as a candidate in the first place. His lack of qualifications should have kept him in the "do not even consider it" category but the country was in the mood to make history and play "wouldn't it be neat if....." And if shutting down the government by the republicans raised a ruckus and had lasting negative effects on republicans, I think trying to give the boot to the affirmative action elected black man, has the potential to blow the roof off.
Republicans paid a steep price for Clintons impeachment and look at him now. That effort boomeranged. He's the Grand Poobah of the democrat party, a revered elder statesman and his wife is considering a run for the presidency and may get in because of her gender, who she's married to and a dubious resume.
I know the reasons it would be politically unwise for them to do it.

What I don't know is if the Republicans can stop themselves.

I question whether the Republicans did pay a steep price for the impeachment of Clinton, since they won the Presidency in 2000, and have maintained control of the House for all but two years since 1994.

Of course, that's talking about politics. You can do that - you choose not to.

As far as the rest of your post - I think you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have a tremendous amount in common with the people who cry racism whenever someone disagrees with Obama.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175794 Mar 15, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Actually both of ya's misrepresented, with the major difference being his was a deliberate parody, while yours represents itself as fact.(no, don't try that thing about "opinion" - wage and price cause-effect has been studied exhaustively).
So, one of your arguments against is that salaried employees won't "get" to work as much OT w/o compensation? I'm sure all salaried workers (inc. myself) appreciate your concern, but being exploited under the guise of quasi-"management" status isn't something we're fighting for.
And you're calling actual pay-for-work-performed a wealth redistribution ploy? This confirms again one of the saddest results of the last 30 years of anti-worker rhetoric - that being the working class arguing against our own betterment. It's no small wonder that worker productivity has sky-rocketed over that time frame while actual wages have stagnated and even declined, and now you're saying that asking to be paid for that increased productivity is greedy "wealth redistribution". The oligarchy of the top 5% has successfully driven a wedge between working folks over meaningless ideological issues, obliterating working-class solidarity, and the results being that very wage stagnation of the bottom 95%, while the top 5% have enjoyed tax and business policies that have skyrocketed their income. Their "hard work" is admirable and compensable, while we, asking for the same, are just plain greedy, right?
Uhhhhh ... Hip?

I'm pretty sure bob was countering parody with parody there.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175795 Mar 15, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>There ya go. And when you factor in that the general public would see it as yet another shameless hyper-partisan grandstanding ploy with no grounds whatsoever to proceed, like the eternal inquisitions of The Darrell Issa Comedy Troupe, well, maybe Republicans are waking up a little. Just a little.
Who said there are no grounds? And btw, the same people who might suspect "it's just a ploy" are the same people who thought he was qualified in the first place and you'll have to pardon me but I don't hold a lot of confidence in their decision making ability.

And judging by his really, REALLY bad performance on all fronts, his subsequent dive in the polls, and having nearly every democrat up for reelection in November not wanting to be within 10 miles of HIM or his signature legislation, I'd say it's the democrats who may be waking up.

I get that you want to have picked a winner, Hip but what you picked was a really good looking horse that can't run. He wasn't worth the risk and he sure wasn't worth the investment.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175796 Mar 15, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Uhhhhh ... Hip?
I'm pretty sure bob was countering parody with parody there.
Yathink? I dunno. If it was, it was the baldest "parody" this side of Cracked magazine.......looked more like a recital of the previous nite's O'Reilly Factor. I'll agree >that's< a parody, but I don't think O'Reilly knows it.

http://oreilly.foxnews.mo bi/quickPage.html?page=25560 &content=102622885&pag eNum=-1

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175797 Mar 15, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said there are no grounds? And btw, the same people who might suspect "it's just a ploy" are the same people who thought he was qualified in the first place and you'll have to pardon me but I don't hold a lot of confidence in their decision making ability.
And judging by his really, REALLY bad performance on all fronts, his subsequent dive in the polls, and having nearly every democrat up for reelection in November not wanting to be within 10 miles of HIM or his signature legislation, I'd say it's the democrats who may be waking up.
I get that you want to have picked a winner, Hip but what you picked was a really good looking horse that can't run. He wasn't worth the risk and he sure wasn't worth the investment.
Apples n' coconuts, Lyndi. I know it spoils your screenplay, but I'll tell you again, I and many like me didn't "pick a winner", we picked a platform, and it's still chuggin' along, 2 steps up, 1 1/2 back, 4 sideways, and dosey-do, as expected in the Byzantine boxstep we call "American democracy in action".

This guy has done ok - disappointing in some areas, many areas actually, but I ain't no pup in this game. It's a progressive platform I'm after, not a player. It's only the idealist lefties, and virtually the entire reactionary right-wing, that are so focused on the jeans and undershirt.

I just really hope they do the impeachment shuffle, and maybe a couple more budgetary twirls. It's been so very entertaining, and I just can't tell you how helpful. Ain't they just grand?

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175798 Mar 15, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Yathink? I dunno. If it was, it was the baldest "parody" this side of Cracked magazine.......looked more like a recital of the previous nite's O'Reilly Factor. I'll agree >that's< a parody, but I don't think O'Reilly knows it.
http://oreilly.foxnews.mo bi/quickPage.html?page=25560 &content=102622885&pag eNum=-1
Okay, so maybe I was wrong, and all bob did was a typo ($455 a week, not month).

I didn't think to check the usual sources first. My bad.

;-(

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#175799 Mar 15, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Uhhhhh ... Hip?
I'm pretty sure bob was countering parody with parody there.
Thanks, but no parody intended. However, it was no RECITAL of the O'reilly Factor segment either. It was a <paraphrase> of BIllO's guest for the segment, Lou Dobbs. Dobbs is no slouch in the financial arena, and I probably erred in some of my comments.

I called it "wealth redistribution" because I couldn't recall the term they used, which was something similar to "wage inequality" or some such. Anyway Dobbs claimed businesses
would likley protect their bottom line by allowing only 25% of the employees to work overtime. The rest would be required to clock out at 40 hours.

OTOH, where legitimate overtime pay WAS established, Dobbs went on to say that businesses would likely pass on the additional costs to consumers, given the current stagnant economy. To me, that meant that in more prosperous times, passing this cost
onto consumers would not likely be necessary.

Again my comments above, regarding the segment with Dobbs, is paraphrased to the best of my recollection.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175800 Mar 15, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, but no parody intended. However, it was no RECITAL of the O'reilly Factor segment either. It was a <paraphrase> of BIllO's guest for the segment, Lou Dobbs. Dobbs is no slouch in the financial arena, and I probably erred in some of my comments.
I called it "wealth redistribution" because I couldn't recall the term they used, which was something similar to "wage inequality" or some such. Anyway Dobbs claimed businesses
would likley protect their bottom line by allowing only 25% of the employees to work overtime. The rest would be required to clock out at 40 hours.
OTOH, where legitimate overtime pay WAS established, Dobbs went on to say that businesses would likely pass on the additional costs to consumers, given the current stagnant economy. To me, that meant that in more prosperous times, passing this cost
onto consumers would not likely be necessary.
Again my comments above, regarding the segment with Dobbs, is paraphrased to the best of my recollection.
My bad.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#175801 Mar 15, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>My bad.
NBD

BTW, I think the term they used was "income inequality", not redistribution of wealth.
That's another set of arguments entirely.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175802 Mar 16, 2014
Recent topics have a nice tie-in with a study conducted by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, and funded by, of all places, NASA. Recently we've touched on long-term viability of societies, as well as social wealth distribution. This study is relevant to both of those subjects.

An excerpt from the study (as reprinted in Guardian.uk):

"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."

The study finds the five most important factors affecting historical civil decline are Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy. Drilling down into detail, the study finds two factors present in virtually all previous collapses; first, "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", or more simply, using more than we've got. Second, ""the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners")[poor] ", the classic Screw You, I Got Mine Syndrome.

Excerpt: "... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels."

Now keep in mind, this is a global perspective, not just American. So, even as we talk about so many living hand to mouth here, our poor are still unimaginably "rich" compared to a vast portion of the world.

So, as "weathy" as we are, reality is that the present and future is an intertwined global economy. So, while we as relative "Elites" might be complacent about our own sustainability in relative terms, keep in mind that this is exactly the mindset preceding previous collapses.

Excerpt:

"While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing."

Chris, you may be right, in general, about this nation's future, but history tells us that the items you are trained to identify as at fault, are barking up the wrong tree. A conspiracy theorist might not be stretching much to say that this is exactly what the Uber-Elites want us to believe.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-...
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175803 Mar 16, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
Recent topics have a nice tie-in with a study conducted by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, and funded by, of all places, NASA. Recently we've touched on long-term viability of societies, as well as social wealth distribution. This study is relevant to both of those subjects.
An excerpt from the study (as reprinted in Guardian.uk):
"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."
The study finds the five most important factors affecting historical civil decline are Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy. Drilling down into detail, the study finds two factors present in virtually all previous collapses; first, "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", or more simply, using more than we've got. Second, ""the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners")[poor] ", the classic Screw You, I Got Mine Syndrome.
Excerpt: "... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels."
Now keep in mind, this is a global perspective, not just American. So, even as we talk about so many living hand to mouth here, our poor are still unimaginably "rich" compared to a vast portion of the world.
So, as "weathy" as we are, reality is that the present and future is an intertwined global economy. So, while we as relative "Elites" might be complacent about our own sustainability in relative terms, keep in mind that this is exactly the mindset preceding previous collapses.
Excerpt:
"While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing."
Chris, you may be right, in general, about this nation's future, but history tells us that the items you are trained to identify as at fault, are barking up the wrong tree. A conspiracy theorist might not be stretching much to say that this is exactly what the Uber-Elites want us to believe.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-...
........and you were seduced by this progressive gobbedlygook ?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175804 Mar 16, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
........and you were seduced by this progressive gobbedlygook ?
Yaknow, there's hardly a one here that just sits at the computer all day looking to see what's on topix. On some of the other threads the messages gallop by by the dozens per hour, but here, must folks I think have this thing in a kind of perspective, as a leisure moment activity.

In that light, do ya think you might add something a little more than a Don Rickles impression, yaknow, like why, or what, you disagree with? Surely (he wonders) you have more thought on the topic than just a knee-jerk blurt to "whut thet lib-rul rote"?

Or not. You don't have to rise to anybody's unrealistic expectations any more than I have to read from your script. To my mind, it's a much larger subject than petty American partisan politics, but hey! Ya can't expect everybody to be able to think outside their chosen role.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175805 Mar 16, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Yaknow, there's hardly a one here that just sits at the computer all day looking to see what's on topix. On some of the other threads the messages gallop by by the dozens per hour, but here, must folks I think have this thing in a kind of perspective, as a leisure moment activity.
In that light, do ya think you might add something a little more than a Don Rickles impression, yaknow, like why, or what, you disagree with? Surely (he wonders) you have more thought on the topic than just a knee-jerk blurt to "whut thet lib-rul rote"?
Or not. You don't have to rise to anybody's unrealistic expectations any more than I have to read from your script. To my mind, it's a much larger subject than petty American partisan politics, but hey! Ya can't expect everybody to be able to think outside their chosen role.
May I summarize?

" do ya think you might add something like why, or what, you disagree with?

Is that what took you three paragraphs to ask?
====

Here we go...... to your article.

"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."

"The study finds the five most important factors affecting historical civil decline are Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy. Drilling down into detail, the study finds two factors present in virtually all previous collapses; first, "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", or more simply, using more than we've got. Second, ""the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners")[poor] ", the classic Screw You, I Got Mine Syndrome."

I promise you, "Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy" were not the five most important factors in the decline and fall of early civilizations and any article that's going to try and sell me that, has lost this reader permanently. Those are their top five? Are you joking?

Honest Hip, Rome didn't fall because of climate, energy, water issues and LOL, " stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity."

And you can tell your progressive history professor I said that.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#175806 Mar 16, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
May I summarize?
" do ya think you might add something like why, or what, you disagree with?
Is that what took you three paragraphs to ask?
====
Here we go...... to your article.
"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."
"The study finds the five most important factors affecting historical civil decline are Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy. Drilling down into detail, the study finds two factors present in virtually all previous collapses; first, "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", or more simply, using more than we've got. Second, ""the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners")[poor] ", the classic Screw You, I Got Mine Syndrome."
I promise you, "Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy" were not the five most important factors in the decline and fall of early civilizations and any article that's going to try and sell me that, has lost this reader permanently. Those are their top five? Are you joking?
Honest Hip, Rome didn't fall because of climate, energy, water issues and LOL, " stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity."
And you can tell your progressive history professor I said that.
What?

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175807 Mar 16, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
May I summarize?
" do ya think you might add something like why, or what, you disagree with?
Is that what took you three paragraphs to ask?
====
Here we go...... to your article.
"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."
"The study finds the five most important factors affecting historical civil decline are Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy. Drilling down into detail, the study finds two factors present in virtually all previous collapses; first, "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", or more simply, using more than we've got. Second, ""the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners")[poor] ", the classic Screw You, I Got Mine Syndrome."
I promise you, "Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy" were not the five most important factors in the decline and fall of early civilizations and any article that's going to try and sell me that, has lost this reader permanently. Those are their top five? Are you joking?
Honest Hip, Rome didn't fall because of climate, energy, water issues and LOL, " stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity."
And you can tell your progressive history professor I said that.
Are you really going to dismiss population and agriculture from the causes of decline of early civilizations? if you're going to talk about the decline of nations, you can't avoid looking at economic stratification too, especially as you get into the industrial era. It has lead to the collapse of royal systems in at least Russia and France.

It's been argued that climate (from perfectly natural causes, before anyone gets starts stamping their feet and drooling from snorting) played a roll in the decline of Rome and the onset of the so-called Dark Ages - and I'm pretty sure those arguments predate the current 'man made global warming' controversy.

Water (except as it's tied to agriculture) and energy I'm not so sure about, although they have been the cause of many a conflict between nations for several centuries at least.

Now, when you get to "stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", well, I'm skeptical at best when it comes to the decline of past civilizations and nations.

So ... if not those five, then what?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175808 Mar 17, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
May I summarize?
" do ya think you might add something like why, or what, you disagree with?
Is that what took you three paragraphs to ask?
====
Here we go...... to your article.
"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."
"The study finds the five most important factors affecting historical civil decline are Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy. Drilling down into detail, the study finds two factors present in virtually all previous collapses; first, "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", or more simply, using more than we've got. Second, ""the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners")[poor] ", the classic Screw You, I Got Mine Syndrome."
I promise you, "Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy" were not the five most important factors in the decline and fall of early civilizations and any article that's going to try and sell me that, has lost this reader permanently. Those are their top five? Are you joking?
Honest Hip, Rome didn't fall because of climate, energy, water issues and LOL, " stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity."
And you can tell your progressive history professor I said that.
There's not much more shrewishly self-involved than to criticize while doing the very same thing being criticized.

You just used twice as much space to basically say, "Huh-Uh! Is Not! I swear!"

And the fair and obvious question me and my progressive history professor patiently ask in response would be, "Ok, Your alternative meta-factors useful for study in the fall of civilizations would be........?"
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175809 Mar 17, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Are you really going to dismiss population and agriculture from the causes of decline of early civilizations? if you're going to talk about the decline of nations, you can't avoid looking at economic stratification too, especially as you get into the industrial era. It has lead to the collapse of royal systems in at least Russia and France.
It's been argued that climate (from perfectly natural causes, before anyone gets starts stamping their feet and drooling from snorting) played a roll in the decline of Rome and the onset of the so-called Dark Ages - and I'm pretty sure those arguments predate the current 'man made global warming' controversy.
Water (except as it's tied to agriculture) and energy I'm not so sure about, although they have been the cause of many a conflict between nations for several centuries at least.
Now, when you get to "stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", well, I'm skeptical at best when it comes to the decline of past civilizations and nations.
So ... if not those five, then what?
Willie, there is no magic 5 point list for the decline and fall of various early civilizations.

=====
"The study finds the five most important factors affecting historical civil decline are Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy."
=====

The reasons for decline of early and ancient civilizations are varied, diverse, complex, multi-layered and we know some are still enveloped in mystery and speculation. Every early civilization that has disappeared had is own unique set of circumstances including war( both too much and too little,) corruption of government, inept government, reduction of commerce, devaluation of currency, disease, issues of religious conflict, recurring invasions, barbarism, societal decay, catastrophic unavoidable events, populace complacency, populace unrest, unsustainable slavery, abuse and misuse of taxation, etc., etc., etc., and each one of those causes, have sub-categories and cannot be omitted in any classroom studying the history of civilization.

The list provided in that article as THE 5 most important factors, is suspiciously convenient for selling progressivism in the 21st century though.......... or didn't you notice?
huytra

Pittsburgh, PA

#175810 Mar 17, 2014

Amazing Results must be seen.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min hojo 683,527
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 6 min bad bob 15,181
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr nanoanomaly 982,996
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Dees Nhutz 286,521
Tribute Wife's DDD's! 2 hr Orangestar4189 1
O.J. Simpson is about to be a free man once again. 2 hr Mirrormirorwall 2
Moroccan Guys Have The Biggest Cocks! (Jun '13) 4 hr Mimi 31
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 hr Just Wondering 619,682
More from around the web