PDA

View Full Version : Poop Celebs Who Steal From ChiefsPlanet: Add Rand Paul to the list


orange
07-02-2010, 03:47 PM
CP 6-25-2010

The US isn't the first Republic that progressivism, militarism and their combined poor economics has threatened to destroy...

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c24fdc77f8b9aa831170300/chart-of-the-day-roman-denarius.gif

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=229950


7-1-2010

Rand Paul likens U.S. to Roman Empire in days before it fell

SHEPHERDSVILLE, Ky. -- Republican U.S. Senate nominee Rand Paul likened the United States to the Roman Empire in the days before it fell during a speech at a tea party rally on Thursday.

"In the latter days of Rome, the economy was crumbling, the emperor ... would placate the mob with bread and circus -- food and entertainment to placate them since the economy was in shambles and dwindling around them," Paul told several hundred people gathered for the rally in a Bullitt County park.

"Now in our country, as our economy is in shambles, they give us Cash for Clunkers and a stimulus check and they tell us to go to the mall and spend your money and everything will be OK ... That's not how you become prosperous as an individual or a country," he told the crowd of supporters.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100701/NEWS01/7010365/Paul+likens+U.S.+to+Roman+Empire+in+days+before+it+fell

Jenson71
07-02-2010, 03:56 PM
Not many people know Roman history. It's not really taught in schools anymore. Most people, including Taco John and Rand Paul, just knew that it fell and have some other loose associations with it. Gladiators, Jesus, and a Shakespeare play.

I think it was Nixon who first really compared America to a falling Rome. Of course, many blame Nixon for leading us down the road to our fall -- like Rome. It's just going to be something that is rehashed and rehashed. "We're Rome!"

You don't need to actually know Roman history to make this statement. You just need a political campaign based on hysteria and fear.

googlegoogle
07-02-2010, 04:28 PM
so we're making news!

Hydrae
07-02-2010, 04:28 PM
Not many people know Roman history. It's not really taught in schools anymore. Most people, including Taco John and Rand Paul, just knew that it fell and have some other loose associations with it. Gladiators, Jesus, and a Shakespeare play.

I think it was Nixon who first really compared America to a falling Rome. Of course, many blame Nixon for leading us down the road to our fall -- like Rome. It's just going to be something that is rehashed and rehashed. "We're Rome!"

You don't need to actually know Roman history to make this statement. You just need a political campaign based on hysteria and fear.

I love how you know about Taco and Rand's education. And you wonder why people think you are a young, arrogant idiot around here.

Jenson71
07-02-2010, 04:39 PM
I love how you know about Taco and Rand's education. And you wonder why people think you are a young, arrogant idiot around here.

When they speak or write about Roman history, it becomes very apparent how much (actually, little) they know about it. I've had a few conversations with Taco that demonstrate his vocabulary far exceeds his historical understanding of the era.

For instance, Rand's quote implies that bread and circuses were something that started about the time Rome started to fall. He makes it sound like that was a cause of that fall.

It's not entirely their fault. It's just common knowledge that ancient history is not really taught anymore in schools. Sure, maybe some freshmen in high school learn about how mummies were created, but nothing important is discussed or taught in most high schools. And college students are not required to learn Roman history, either.

redsurfer11
07-02-2010, 05:20 PM
Not many people know Roman history. It's not really taught in schools anymore. Most people, including Taco John and Rand Paul, just knew that it fell and have some other loose associations with it. Gladiators, Jesus, and a Shakespeare play.

I think it was Nixon who first really compared America to a falling Rome. Of course, many blame Nixon for leading us down the road to our fall -- like Rome. It's just going to be something that is rehashed and rehashed. "We're Rome!"

You don't need to actually know Roman history to make this statement. You just need a political campaign based on hysteria and fear.

As compared to a political campaign based on "Hope and Change"

JohnnyV13
07-02-2010, 06:11 PM
Taco's (and Rand's) comparison is only superficially appropriate.

First of all, it wasn't economic collapse that brought down the Roman republic, economic collapse brought down the Roman Empire around 400 years later.

The Roman republic ended mosltly because it was poorly structured. First of all, public officials didn't receive pay. And, most of those public buildings we admire from Rome weren't built with taxes. IN fact, if you wanted to win high office in Rome, candidates were generally expected to build public works for "the common good" out their own pocket.

Why was this structure a problem? Only when it was combined with the powers provincial governors possessed. Many times, ambitious politicians sought governorships because they could build great wealth from these positions. For example, Julius Cesear was relatively poor for an upper class Roman until he became a provincial governor.

And, Cesear was particularly successful as a general, conquering Gaul (including his famous seige of Alesia where he build a double encirlement: one around the Gallic city of Alesia and another around his own army to protect it from the relief force that came to rescue Alesia). Roman governors could recruit legions under their own command, with troops mostly composed of non roman soldiers (with only a core group of roman officers and non commissioned centurions in most provincial legions).

Distant governors could not only build great wealth, they also could command legions whose loyalty was to their commander (not to Rome).

Imagine what would have happened in the 2000 election if Gore and Bush had armies under their personal command, whose soldiers were loyal only to them? Those kind of repeated civil wars between Roman politicians is what ended the Roman Republic: not "militarism", economic collapse or inflation.

In fact, the Roman Republic was BUILT on militarism. Militarism is what made Rome a far flung empire instead of a small city state.

JohnnyV13
07-02-2010, 06:41 PM
Notice also that Taco's own graph shows his knowledge to be superficial.

His graph begins 64-68 A.D., well after the Roman Republic's collapse, yet he states in his original thread that "we're not the only Republic to fall from economic collapse, militarism and inflation".

And, even if we ignore that blunder and make the comparison between the Roman Empire and us today, its still a weak comparison.

For example, its true that both Rome and the US today have long term inflation.

The source of that inflation is quite different. In Rome's case it was because the Empire bought too many foreign goods. Fiat money has one major advantage that Rome's distress points out: money used to purchase foreign goods eventually MUST buy something in the nation that issued the currency (even if it passes through many intermediate holders). When a nation uses specie as money, those coins don't necessarily have to "come back" to have value.

That was Rome's problem, they bought too many foreign goods (imbalance of trade) without that money having a tie to Rome's future GDP. THe flow of specie out of Rome was so precarious that they didn't have enough physical currency to run their economy. Near the end of the Roman empire, much of their economy was reduced to barter: even the government paid their legions in land rather than coin (Which Hans Delbruck contends destroyed the Roman legion's military effectiveness. When a soldier is paid in land, he must farm it to profit. Soldiers farming their land can't practice regularly, and certainly can't practice enough to execute the complex manuevers required to make Marian legion tactics work. Hence, the Romans started using Germanic barberian tactics and Germanic mercenaries to defend their borders).

OUr problem isn't a declining money supply. Our problem is the opposite, a steadily increasing money supply.

Militarism wasn't really a cause behind the Empire's collapse. Heck, both the republic and empire were built upon a model of military expansion. In fact, the Roman Empire's biggest problem might have been that their administrative ability couldn't grow enough to manage any more conquered territory. Hence, the Romans had problems managing the territory they possessed much less being able to conquer any more nations (which is a huge problem when your entire system is built upon military expansion).

For example, the buildings we so admire from Rome were built with slave labor. And, the primary source for Roman slave labor was conquered people.

Slainte
07-02-2010, 06:55 PM
I understand Taco John and Rand Paul have both enjoyed Toga parties, so they've got that going for them...which is nice.

bango
07-03-2010, 12:30 PM
I think that we are more like France was right before their revolution. I just doubt that it will be as violent, and maybe instead of moving closer to freedom, we will head towards to even less liberty.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2010, 03:49 PM
Shoulda used the British Empire....an empire of mercantilist trade using war to secure raw resources.