Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Ken B]

Heck, I'm sure they think that of all the Nordic countries.  0:)

See, this is how epistemic closure works. You make a statement like this about "they" believe, there being no referent for "they". Then everyone agrees that this is what "they" are like and goes away feeling like some of their ideas have been vindicated. When challenged (like I am doing now) it's easy to retroactively define some "they" and dismiss the challenge. The thing is, it would be easy to recognize if you saw it in another context.

[Karl Henning]

Maybe he's Kenyan, I don't know. I hope he's American.

[Karl Henning]

Perhaps it is a comment added to the article by a reader, for I do not see it in the body of the article, but a casual search on Google yielded a they:

So if you like the way the communist roll then Sanders is your guy

[28Orot]

The tendency (not just witnessed here) to label anyone who would manage to fit into the left wing of politics as "communist" is one of the more fascinating parts of the American political psyche.

Do y'all think the whole of Scandinavia is communist?

Its not so simple as you put it.

The idea that its not fair that most of the wealth goes to the top 1% as Bernie put it is a flawed argument. These people have made it, or were lucky or were blessed, or were not lazy and they accumulated all this wealth fair and square. Now unless they are criminals they shouldn't be blamed for making millions of dollars. There is nothing wrong with making lots of money, they didn't steal it from anyone, and they didn't take it from the poor. Bernie tries to paint a very obscure picture suggesting that the dire state of so many poor people in this country is because of the rich folks. Well its not. Since time immemorial there were always those who were poor and those who were rich. Trying to change this reality is nothing more then an inverted war declared by the communists/seculars against the notion that there is a higher power, aka God that controls who gets what depending on their behavior or destiny or duty/ task in this world.

That is why the communists were always secular or atheists. They reject the religious message that actions have consequences and if you don't live a life that is worthy in the eyes of God, he can hurt you financially until you fix your ways. If you note all these pure communist countries were ran by vicious and brutal dictators in the likes of Stalin and Kim il jong. They forced their people to view them as gods and worship them for they were the ones responsible for their well being. The result was that the Russians and the Koreans and many other nations that followed this creed suffered in the hands of their so called leaders and they were disproportionally poorer then many other western democratic countries.

Scandinavia, while not practicing pure communism, they do have some ideas that they incorporated into their governing and social systems. And if you note, the countries that make up Scandinavia are some of the most secular in all of Europe, again that affinity and unity between secularism and communism. And while Scandinavia is not suffering financially like other communist loving nations, they are nevertheless crumbling before our very eyes. The divorce rate in Sweden for example is more then 50%. Swedish politicians have opened the gates of their countries for unrestrained and uncontrolled immigration from the four corners of the world, especially from Muslim countries. Now these people do not even try to integrate into Swedish society and today in some cities in Sweden the local native Christians and Jews can't walk the streets without the fear of been brutally assaulted.

Now sometimes the result/punishment of following the communist secular dogma is not financial. Remember that Rome was destroyed because its moral compass was eroded even though they were very wealthy, and its empire controlled most of the world.

Now Bernie, who is trying to push his atheist communist dogma on the people of this country is bad in many ways.
In this free country you can believe what you want and you can also not believe, you can be an atheist and you can also be a religious person, but if someone stands up and tells everyone that his way is the highway, and that he has all the answers to all the problems, and the rich people are their enemies is rather fooling the people on a grand scale.

The problems that the united states has are not rooted in some rigged financial inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The problems are reminiscent of how all Great Empires of old have lost their way and influence and in the end simply disappeared. Assyria, Greece, Babylon, Persia and Rome all were Mighty and powerful empires with vast lands and enormous worldwide reach. But they all crumbled from within because their morality was eroded and when a nation lives a life of abominations and profanities it simply losses its right to exist, as simple as that.

No candidate has said anything about it seriously except for Ben Carson who mentioned the fall of rome due to moral bankruptcy, but even he had not made it his top priority because he would have been swallowed up by the masses of this country who don't want to hear anything about morality, they just want to blame the rich boogyman who stole all their wealth and they see Bernie as their prophet who will somehow by some magic trick will give them everything they want all for free...

[Todd]

Remember that Rome was destroyed because its moral compass was eroded even though they were very wealthy, and its empire controlled most of the world.

When did Rome control most of the world?

[28Orot]

When did Rome control most of the world?

It controlled the places were most of the worlds population lived.

[Karl Henning]

Now Bernie, who is trying to push his atheist communist dogma on the people of this country [...]

Now, that is an irony in a post which began, [It's] not so simple as you put it.

No candidate has said anything about it seriously except for Ben Carson who mentioned that fall of rome due to moral bankruptcy [...]

This does not materially address your point;  but honestly, I have had trouble with the contention that Ben Carson says anything serious, since about the time he claimed that the pyramids at Giza were grain silos.

[Karl Henning]

It controlled the places were most of the worlds population lived.

Good thing so few people lived in China and India, then!

[Ken B]

It controlled the places were most of the worlds population lived.

Oyveh. You could plausibly argue that Rome controlled most of the world known to themselves, and that you meant "known (to them) world" but you can't plausibly claim China was empty.

[28Orot]

China at that time had about 40 million people...

[Todd]

It controlled the places were most of the worlds population lived.

No, it didn't. 

[Sergeant Rock]

So this is what became of Eddie Munster 




Sarge

[28Orot]

No, it didn't.

It was the greatest empire of its time, and controlled many countries and vast lands. All of Europe, Africa, and large parts of Asia... Australia and the Americas were not settled yet except maybe of its few natives...

[Karl Henning]

Erm, all of Africa?

[28Orot]

Erm, all of Africa?

Carthage, Egypt but technically they could have conquered it all.

[Brian]

They reject the religious message that actions have consequences and if you don't live a life that is worthy in the eyes of God, he can hurt you financially until you fix your ways.

Anybody else notice this gem?

Listen, I try not to be rude to new GMGers because I really want this to be an open, welcoming forum, but when you write posts like these, you make it hard for me to be friendly.

[Todd]

It was the greatest empire of its time, and controlled many countries and vast lands. All of Europe, Africa, and large parts of Asia... Australia and the Americas were not settled yet except maybe of its few natives...

Rome did not control all of Europe.  Rome did not control all of Africa.  Rome controlled Asian territories between the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Red Sea, and the Arabian peninsula - in other words, the Near East, which geographically and demographically is a very small portion of Asia.  It may have been the greatest empire of its time, but its geographic dominion was limited, and it never ruled most of humanity.  These are basic, established facts.  They do not coincide with what you initially wrote.

Carthage, Egypt but technically they could have conquered it all.

How did you determine that they "technically" could have conquered it all?

Listen, I try not to be rude to new GMGers

You certain he or she is new?

[28Orot]

Anybody else notice this gem?

Listen, I try not to be rude to new GMGers because I really want this to be an open, welcoming forum, but when you write posts like these, you make it hard for me to be friendly.

What this has to do with anything? this is something that millions of people believe. No one has told you to follow this, but I can't be the first one on this planet who has conveyed to you this classic conservative idea.

[Karl Henning]

Carthage, Egypt but technically they could have conquered it all.

Well, you do understand, Saul, the difference between "they controlled all of Africa" and the speculative assertion that they could have conquered it all.

[28Orot]

Rome did not control all of Europe.  Rome did not control all of Africa.  Rome controlled Asian territories between the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Red Sea, and the Arabian peninsula - in other words, the Near East, which geographically and demographically is a very small portion of Asia.  It may have been the greatest empire of its time, but its geographic dominion was limited, and it never ruled most of humanity.  These are basic, established facts.  They do not coincide with what you initially wrote.




How did you determine that they "technically" could have conquered it all?




You certain he or she is new?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_(Roman_province)