Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Armistice Day

2007-04-21T04:49:52Z

Bomber23k:

{{stub}}Armistice Day was November 11, 1918. It was the day that [[World War I]] combat was ended with the signing of an armistice, at eleven AM (during the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the year nineteen eighteen). The war officially ended on June 28, 1919, with the [[Treaty of Versailles]] <ref>http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html</ref>. The armistice was signed by the Allies and the [[Central Powers]] in France. The Germans were laid with the heavy burden of repaying the Allies (mostly Britain and France). They had to pay them a reparation of 30 million dollars[[citation needed]] in a appointed amount of time. Germany was required to regulate army size[[citation needed]]. Reparation payments and resentment, along with economic instability caused by the [[United States]] [[stock market crash]] in [[1929]], among other things, allowed political instability that led to the rise of [[Adolf Hitler]] and the [[Nazi Party]]. Thus laying the seeds for [[World War II]].

[[Category:Observances]]

==References==
[[http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html]]

Armistice Day

2007-04-21T04:46:54Z

Bomber23k:

Classical Civilizations

2007-04-21T04:21:59Z

Bomber23k:

Classical Civilizations is a term for ancient Mediterranean civilizations, generally of the pre-Christian period. Examples Include Classical [[Greece]] and [[Rome]], [[Carthage]] and [[Egypt]].

==Classical Influences in Modern Times==
The symbolism of these cultures are still used in Western culture today; the use of the Roman Eagle as a motif such occurs throughout many Western cultures. The term Caesar or corruptions such as Czar ([[Russian]]), and Kaiser ([[German]]), are often used as the title of Emperor figures. Many buildings related to the business of government in Western countries have their architecture derived from that of Ancient Greece and Rome, or at least those built in traditional materials, Latin is used throughout the Catholic Church and Western legal systems to describe terms and concepts, ''pro bono publico'' (for the good of the Public) for instance. And indeed scientific names are either in latin, greek or a combination of the two.

==Classical Language Evolution and Derivation==
{{stub}}

Talk:Blue state

2007-04-20T00:19:14Z

Bomber23k: New page: Supportive of communism? Give me a break. Bomber23k

Supportive of communism? Give me a break. [[user:bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

Talk:Massachusetts liberal

2007-04-19T23:39:34Z

Bomber23k:

So, would it be at all relevant that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html], one of the lowest crime rates. [http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm], [http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/], [http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm], one of the lowest murder rates [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169&scid=12] and (I don't have a citation at the moement) one of the lowest adultery rates? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:56, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::This is indeed overspecific on some of their errors. [[User:DDG|DDG]] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Do we really need this article ==

I am very conservative but I don't see a need for this article. Why not simply include it in the MA article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

-I agree. Only the first four words are relevant to the article title. The stats belong in the MA article. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

Metal

2007-04-17T12:42:19Z

Bomber23k:

A shiny, [[solid]] substance, such as [[iron]]. They contrast with the [[nonmetal]]s. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to break metals. Except when they are very easy to break, as in the case of [[aluminium]], [[lead]], cast [[iron]], [[tin]], [[copper]], [[gold]], [[silver]], and many others.

Also, variety of rock and roll known for its bone crushing riffs and facemelting guitar solos.

Huns

2007-04-17T03:50:48Z

Bomber23k:

{{stub}}

They were very barbaric, and frequently unkind to Christians.

The most famous leader of the Huns was [[Attila]] (406-453), the "Scourge of God", who having put the [[Balkans]] (to the very walls of [[Constantinople]]), [[France]], and northern [[Italy]], to fire and the sword, and then extracted tribute from the Romans to not ravage them any more, expired from a surfeit of [[alcohol]] and a nosebleed at his wedding, though other sources say he died during sexual intercourse.

[[Category:History]]

Talk:The Punic Wars

2007-04-17T03:35:44Z

Bomber23k:

Added this page, please help. Enormous amount of subject matter and I'm low on time. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

Talk:The Punic Wars

2007-04-17T03:31:08Z

Bomber23k: New page: Added this page, please help. Enormous amount of subject matter and I'm low on time. User:Bomber23k

Added this page, please help. Enormous amount of subject matter and I'm low on time. [[User:Bomber23k]]

The Punic Wars

2007-04-17T03:22:46Z

Bomber23k: New page: {{Progress}} {{Rome}} The Punic Wars were a series of three wars fought between the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire. These wars were focused in the western Mediterranea...

{{Progress}}
{{Rome}}

The Punic Wars were a series of three wars fought between the [[Roman Republic]] and the [[Carthaginian Empire]]. These wars were focused in the western Mediterranean, and stretched off and on from 264 to 146 BC. The term "Punic" refers to [[Carthage]], which was originally a colony of the [[Phoenicians]] which grew to become an independent city-state and later empire.

==First Punic War 264-241 BC==

==Second Punic War 218-201 BC==

==Third Punic War 149-146 BC==

Roman Republic

2007-04-17T03:03:31Z

Bomber23k:

{{Progress}}
{{Rome}}

The '''Roman Republic''' is the term used to refer to the second era of Roman history, between the kingship and the empire. The origins of the Republic are dubious and legendary at best, and utterly fictional at worst. However, the Romans had a concrete sense of the [[Ab Urbe Condita|foundation date of their city]], and referred to it frequently in histories. From Roman reckoning, historians place the pivotal events of the beginning of the Roman Republic at 509 B.C.

Historians also debate the time of the fall of Rome, based on their private conceptions of what Roman republicanism truly meant. In a sense, the end of the Republic was inevitable after the rise of [[Marius]], but the true end of the Republic is often placed at either the death of [[Julius Caesar]] (when Republican government first truly ceased), the [[Battle of Actium]] (Augustus' victory over [[Marc Antony]]), or the [[Constitutional Settlement]] of [[Augustus Caesar]], which recognized that ruler as ''princeps'', or "first citizen," with plenary power over Roman holdings. Most historians agree to use the date of the Constitutional Settlement as the date when all possibility of the restoration of the Republic finally ended, bringing the Republic to its true close, in 27 B.C.

==Early Years==
=== A Short Primer on [[Etruria|Etrurian]] Influence on Rome ===

=== The Rape of Lucretia, and Overthrow of the Tarquins ===

=== The Gauls and Other Foundation Myths ===
Early in Roman Republican history, the city was besieged by the [[Gauls]], led by [[Brennus]], and ransomed. This was the first incursion upon the soil of the city of Rome, and the last time enemies passed the sacred [[pomerium]] (border line) of the city until 410 A.D. The account is romanticized in [[Titus Livius|Livy's]] ''Roman History'', where he describes that but for the efforts of the scorned hero [[Camillus]], the [[Gauls]] would have utterly razed the city.<ref>Plutarch, ''Life of Camillus''</ref> Instead, the ragtag remnants of the Roman Army were held the [[Capitoline Hill]] - one of the Seven Hills of Rome - against the [[Gauls]] in stalemate, ceding the rest of the city to the advancing armies.

After this stalemate had lasted for some time, the [[Gauls]] offered to leave [[Rome]] for a sum of gold. The Romans quickly accepted, and began to carry out their gold, and weigh out the appropriate price on a Gallic [[balance scale]]. The Romans soon discovered that the [[Gauls]] had deliberately tinkered with the scales so as to weigh the gold lighter than it actually was, to trick the Romans into paying more. As the Romans protested, and prepared to rescind the treaty, [[Brennus]] is said to have yelled ''"Vae Victis!"'', or, "Woe to the Conquered!", upon which he threw his sword onto the scales as an ''additional'' counterweight to the Roman gold. The Romans, their land savage and their gold extorted from them, set to rebuilding the city. The [[Gauls]] were never to return.

However, the rebuilding of the city proved difficult. [[Titus Livius|Livy]] tells that the Romans almost considered abandoning the city of Rome, and moving wholesale to [[Alba Longa]], the mythical nearby city of [[Aeneas]], to begin their lives anew there. However, after an impassioned speech by [[Camillus]], the Romans instead chose to rebuild Rome, at a breakneck pace. [[Titus Livius|Livy]] blames this hurried reconstruction for the disorganization and haphazard layout of the Roman streets, when compared with the ordered city plans of provincial capitals and colonies.<ref>Titus Livius, ''Roman History''</ref>

Much of this account was likely sensationalized, to glorify the early roots of Rome in correlation with the image programme of [[Augustus Caesar]], [[Titus Livius|Livy's]] direct patron.

== The Conquest of Italy ==

=== The Struggle of the Orders: the Gracchi ===

=== [[The Punic Wars]]: Nascent Roman Imperialism ===

=== The Jugurthine War, Marius, and the Beginning of the End ===

==The Long Fall==
=== Sulla and Pompey: "More Worship the Rising Sun than the Setting" ===

=== The First Triumvirate ===

=== The Fall of the Republic ===

==Roman Legacies==

=== Republican Overtones in the Early Empire ===

=== Republican Terminology and Symbology Today ===

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Ancient Rome]]

Roman Republic

2007-04-17T02:58:08Z

Bomber23k:

{{Progress}}
{{Rome}}

The '''Roman Republic''' is the term used to refer to the second era of Roman history, between the kingship and the empire. The origins of the Republic are dubious and legendary at best, and utterly fictional at worst. However, the Romans had a concrete sense of the [[Ab Urbe Condita|foundation date of their city]], and referred to it frequently in histories. From Roman reckoning, historians place the pivotal events of the beginning of the Roman Republic at 509 B.C.

Historians also debate the time of the fall of Rome, based on their private conceptions of what Roman republicanism truly meant. In a sense, the end of the Republic was inevitable after the rise of [[Marius]], but the true end of the Republic is often placed at either the death of [[Julius Caesar]] (when Republican government first truly ceased), the [[Battle of Actium]] (Augustus' victory over [[Marc Antony]]), or the [[Constitutional Settlement]] of [[Augustus Caesar]], which recognized that ruler as ''princeps'', or "first citizen," with plenary power over Roman holdings. Most historians agree to use the date of the Constitutional Settlement as the date when all possibility of the restoration of the Republic finally ended, bringing the Republic to its true close, in 27 B.C.

==Early Years==
=== A Short Primer on [[Etruria|Etrurian]] Influence on Rome ===

=== The Rape of Lucretia, and Overthrow of the Tarquins ===

=== The Gauls and Other Foundation Myths ===
Early in Roman Republican history, the city was besieged by the [[Gauls]], led by [[Brennus]], and ransomed. This was the first incursion upon the soil of the city of Rome, and the last time enemies passed the sacred [[pomerium]] (border line) of the city until 410 A.D. The account is romanticized in [[Titus Livius|Livy's]] ''Roman History'', where he describes that but for the efforts of the scorned hero [[Camillus]], the [[Gauls]] would have utterly razed the city.<ref>Plutarch, ''Life of Camillus''</ref> Instead, the ragtag remnants of the Roman Army were held the [[Capitoline Hill]] - one of the Seven Hills of Rome - against the [[Gauls]] in stalemate, ceding the rest of the city to the advancing armies.

After this stalemate had lasted for some time, the [[Gauls]] offered to leave [[Rome]] for a sum of gold. The Romans quickly accepted, and began to carry out their gold, and weigh out the appropriate price on a Gallic [[balance scale]]. The Romans soon discovered that the [[Gauls]] had deliberately tinkered with the scales so as to weigh the gold lighter than it actually was, to trick the Romans into paying more. As the Romans protested, and prepared to rescind the treaty, [[Brennus]] is said to have yelled ''"Vae Victis!"'', or, "Woe to the Conquered!", upon which he threw his sword onto the scales as an ''additional'' counterweight to the Roman gold. The Romans, their land savage and their gold extorted from them, set to rebuilding the city. The [[Gauls]] were never to return.

However, the rebuilding of the city proved difficult. [[Titus Livius|Livy]] tells that the Romans almost considered abandoning the city of Rome, and moving wholesale to [[Alba Longa]], the mythical nearby city of [[Aeneas]], to begin their lives anew there. However, after an impassioned speech by [[Camillus]], the Romans instead chose to rebuild Rome, at a breakneck pace. [[Titus Livius|Livy]] blames this hurried reconstruction for the disorganization and haphazard layout of the Roman streets, when compared with the ordered city plans of provincial capitals and colonies.<ref>Titus Livius, ''Roman History''</ref>

Much of this account was likely sensationalized, to glorify the early roots of Rome in correlation with the image programme of [[Augustus Caesar]], [[Titus Livius|Livy's]] direct patron.

== The Conquest of Italy ==

=== The Struggle of the Orders: the Gracchi ===

=== [[The Punic Wars: Nascent Roman Imperialism]] ===

=== The Jugurthine War, Marius, and the Beginning of the End ===

==The Long Fall==
=== Sulla and Pompey: "More Worship the Rising Sun than the Setting" ===

=== The First Triumvirate ===

=== The Fall of the Republic ===

==Roman Legacies==

=== Republican Overtones in the Early Empire ===

=== Republican Terminology and Symbology Today ===

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Ancient Rome]]

Roman Empire

2007-04-17T02:43:39Z

Bomber23k: /* Roman Engineering */

{{Progress}}
{{Rome}}
An empire started by the Romans that stretched from British Isles 44AD to Northern Africa 146 B.C., to Armenia 42 B.C. The Roman Empire was the direct successor to the [[Roman Republic]].

Rome may be credited with creating the virtue of [[civic republicanism]]: that a citizen should give his life in battle or in work to the glory of the Republic.

Its greatest ruler was [[Caius Iulius Caesar Octavianus]], or [[Augustus Caesar|Augustus]], although many others parallel his life in depth.

Rome contributed a great deal to the mythology of early Christianity. For example, the prophecy that "a savior would come out of [[Judea]]" was popular in the Roman Empire, so popular that the biographer [[Suetonious]] saw fit to include it in his [[De Vitae Caesarium]]. However, Suetonious identified the savior as [[Vespasian]] in his "Life of Vespasian," since Vespasian did, as it was said, "save the State."

==Roman Engineering==
The Roman Empire is known for its construction of roads that stretched throughout the Empire. These roads nurtured trade through the Empire and connected with other trade routes as far as the [[Silk Road]] to [[China]]. In addition to trade, the highways allowed for fast overland movement of military forces to areas that needed defense or suppression. This same spirit of military infrastructure has a modern descendant in the [[Eisenhower Interstate System]]. The Roman style of road construction was revolutionary at it's time, and has for the most part yet to be improved upon. Crowns allowed runoff of rainwater into gutters and sub-packing of peastone and gravel allowed for absorption of frost heaves where necessary. While not all Roman roads were built this way, this was nevertheless a milestone in road construction. Surveying methods of the time forced the Romans to build these roads arrow straight. During the reign of [[Diocletian]] 372 main roads were recorded, totaling 53,000 miles<ref>Leslie and Roy Adkins, ''Life in Ancient Rome'' ISBN 0-19-512332-8</ref>. Many of the routes the roads followed are still in use today.

Aqueducts were built to supply water to cities by finding an aquifer or reservoir and channeling it along the route of the aqueduct with a slight reduction in grade to provide water pressure. Once the aqueduct arrived at destination city, lead pipes directed the flow of water to fountains and even the wealthier homes. Sewers were provided, as were large public latrines and often extravagant public and private baths.

These baths, known as '''thermae''' usually provided separate rooms for cold '''(frigidarium)''', warm '''(tepidarium)''', and hot '''(caldarium)''' bathing. Water and floors were heated using a hypocaust heating system; an under floor furnace. Tending these furnaces was a dangerous job, done by slaves. As bath complexes grew larger, they began to include saunas and gyms, along with other health and hygiene related buildings and areas. Roman baths were not merely salubrious, however. They also were an important social gathering point along with [[forum]]s and [[curiae]].

Much of Roman construction was poured concrete, made primarily from seashells. This concrete was able to cure underwater, vital to bridging rivers and bodies of water.

== The Fall of the Roman Empire==
The causes of the decline of the Roman Empire are controversial. Many posit that [[immorality]] and [[homosexuality]] so weakened spirit of the Empire that it was unable to stand firm against the Barbarians. Certainly poets such as [[Catullus]] and [[Juvenal]] describe many unnatural practises that may well have contributed to the final collapse just four hundred years later. However, this theory was sensationalized by the (at the time) popular British writer [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote the influential ''[[Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]''. Gibbons, though, was highly biased, in his attempt to analogize between the fall of Rome and what he saw as a lessening of moral strength in his own [[England]]. This theory is widely discounted by modern historians.

One influential writer theorized that the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire are simple - it never was strong. Rather, it simply had no strong enemy prior to 300 A.D.<ref>Edward N. Luttwak, ''The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire''</ref> Prior to this time, a complicated system of "buffer states" and sedentary provincial legions could hold such a vast territory - however, with the advent of the first comparable military unit, the [[Visigoths]], led by [[Alaric the Visigoth|Alaric]].

== After "the Fall" ==
Accounts of the Roman world's immediate descent into poverty have been greatly exaggerated. Rather, rulers such as [[Theoderic the Ostrogoth]] and his followers (the [[Amal]] clan) ruled from [[Ravenna]] in the Roman style, maintaining much of Roman life and infrastructure.<ref>Peter Wolfram, ''The Goths''</ref> Theoderic even employed Romans to ensure this continuity and sense of Roman stability. One example was [[Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator]] (or just Cassiodorus), who, writing as Theoderic, famously urged all Romans to "clothe themselves with the morals of the [[toga]]" - i.e., retain your Roman ways, in spite of the "barbarian" rule.

This twilight period was finally cut short by the reconquest campaign planned by the [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]] emperor [[Justinian I]], led by the general [[Belisarius]]. In a bloody war, both sides reduced the Italian countryside to nothing, with the Byzantines finally inheriting a ravaged husk.<ref>Procopius, ''the Gothic Wars''</ref> Many Romans - Eastern and Western - blamed Justinian for this devastation.<ref>Procopius, ''the Secret Histories''</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

See [[World History Lecture Four]]

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Ancient Rome]]

User:Bomber23k

2007-04-16T04:45:26Z

Bomber23k:

Frustrated with the verity of this site versus the claim of "trustworthy".

It appears to user Bomber23k that many pages have been written by middle school students.

User name rings bells apparently. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Bomber23k] Actually a nickname derived from a Motorhead reference.

Also struggles with HTML.

Speling errors due to alcohol.

according to jury duty exemption: prejudiced against all races.

Makes jokes, see above.

User:Bomber23k

2007-04-16T04:44:24Z

Bomber23k:

Frustrated with the verity of this site versus the claim of "trustworthy".

It appears to user Bomber23k that many pages have been written by middle school students.

User name rings bells apparently. Actually a nickname derived from a Motorhead reference. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Bomber23k]

Also struggles with HTML.

Speling errors due to alcohol.

according to jury duty exemption: prejudiced against all races.

Makes jokes, see above.

User:Bomber23k

2007-04-16T04:30:38Z

Bomber23k:

Frustrated with the verity of this site versus the claim of "trustworthy".

It appears to user Bomber23k that many pages have been written by middle school students.

User name rings bells apparently. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Bomber23k]

Also struggles with HTML.

According to jury duty exemption: prejudiced against all races.

Makes jokes, see above.

=References=

User:Bomber23k

2007-04-16T04:26:02Z

Bomber23k:

Frustrated with the verity of this site versus the claim of "trustworthy".
It appears that many pages have been written by middle school students.

Also struggles with HTML.

According to jury duty exemption: prejudiced against all races.

Makes jokes, see above.

User:Bomber23k

2007-04-16T04:25:11Z

Bomber23k:

Frustrated with the verity of this site versus the claim of "trustworthy".
It appears that many pages have been written by middle school students.

Also struggles with HTML.
According to jury duty exemption: prejudiced against all races.
Makes jokes, see above.

Talk:Roman Empire

2007-04-16T04:10:44Z

Bomber23k:

This needs sooo much work its not even funny anymore

: Could you help? I started this and [[Roman Republic]] but got swamped with law school work. PLEASE. Help!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Great addition on engineering.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

So much work still to be done though. Unfortunately I have schoolwork I should be doing now too.'''bomber23k'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:bomber23k talk]

Roman Empire

2007-04-16T03:59:37Z

Bomber23k:

{{Progress}}
{{Rome}}
An empire started by the Romans that stretched from British Isles 44AD to Northern Africa 146 B.C., to Armenia 42 B.C. The Roman Empire was the direct successor to the [[Roman Republic]].

Rome may be credited with creating the virtue of [[civic republicanism]]: that a citizen should give his life in battle or in work to the glory of the Republic.

Its greatest ruler was [[Caius Iulius Caesar Octavianus]], or [[Augustus Caesar|Augustus]], although many others parallel his life in depth.

Rome contributed a great deal to the mythology of early Christianity. For example, the prophecy that "a savior would come out of [[Judea]]" was popular in the Roman Empire, so popular that the biographer [[Suetonious]] saw fit to include it in his [[De Vitae Caesarium]]. However, Suetonious identified the savior as [[Vespasian]] in his "Life of Vespasian," since Vespasian did, as it was said, "save the State."

==Roman Engineering==
The Roman Empire is known for its construction of roads that stretched throughout the Empire. These roads nurtured trade through the Empire and connected with other trade routes as far as the [[Silk Road]] to China. The Roman style of road construction was revolutionary at it's time, and has for the most part yet to be improved upon. Crowns allowed runoff of rainwater into gutters and sub-packing of peastone and gravel allowed for absorption of frost heaves where necessary. While not all Roman roads were built this way, this was nevertheless a milestone in road construction. Surveying methods of the time forced the Romans to build these roads arrow straight. During the reign of [[Diocletian]] 372 main roads were recorded, totaling 53,000 miles<ref>Leslie and Roy Adkins, ''Life in Ancient Rome'' ISBN 0-19-512332-8</ref>. Many of the routes the roads followed are still in use today.

Aqueducts were built to supply water to cities by finding an aquifer or reservoir and channeling it along the route of the aqueduct with a slight reduction in grade to provide water pressure. Once the aqueduct arrived at destination city, lead pipes directed the flow of water to fountains and even the wealthier homes. Sewers were provided, as were large public latrines.

Much of Roman construction was poured concrete, made primarily from seashells. This concrete was able to cure underwater, vital to bridging rivers and bodies of water.

== The Fall of the Roman Empire==
The causes of the decline of the Roman Empire are controversial. Many posit that [[immorality]] and [[homosexuality]] so weakened spirit of the Empire that it was unable to stand firm against the Barbarians. Certainly poets such as [[Catullus]] and [[Juvenal]] describe many unnatural practises that may well have contributed to the final collapse just four hundred years later. However, this theory was sensationalized by the (at the time) popular British writer [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote the influential ''[[Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]''. Gibbons, though, was highly biased, in his attempt to analogize between the fall of Rome and what he saw as a lessening of moral strength in his own [[England]]. This theory is widely discounted by modern historians.

One influential writer theorized that the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire are simple - it never was strong. Rather, it simply had no strong enemy prior to 300 A.D.<ref>Edward N. Luttwak, ''The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire''</ref> Prior to this time, a complicated system of "buffer states" and sedentary provincial legions could hold such a vast territory - however, with the advent of the first comparable military unit, the [[Visigoths]], led by [[Alaric the Visigoth|Alaric]].

== After "the Fall" ==
Accounts of the Roman world's immediate descent into poverty have been greatly exaggerated. Rather, rulers such as [[Theoderic the Ostrogoth]] and his followers (the [[Amal]] clan) ruled from [[Ravenna]] in the Roman style, maintaining much of Roman life and infrastructure.<ref>Peter Wolfram, ''The Goths''</ref> Theoderic even employed Romans to ensure this continuity and sense of Roman stability. One example was [[Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator]] (or just Cassiodorus), who, writing as Theoderic, famously urged all Romans to "clothe themselves with the morals of the [[toga]]" - i.e., retain your Roman ways, in spite of the "barbarian" rule.

This twilight period was finally cut short by the reconquest campaign planned by the [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]] emperor [[Justinian I]], led by the general [[Belisarius]]. In a bloody war, both sides reduced the Italian countryside to nothing, with the Byzantines finally inheriting a ravaged husk.<ref>Procopius, ''the Gothic Wars''</ref> Many Romans - Eastern and Western - blamed Justinian for this devastation.<ref>Procopius, ''the Secret Histories''</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

See [[World History Lecture Four]]

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Ancient Rome]]

User:Bomber23k

2007-04-16T02:52:27Z

Bomber23k: New page: Frustrated with the quality of this site versus the claim of "trustworthy". It appears that many pages have been written by middle school students.

Frustrated with the quality of this site versus the claim of "trustworthy".
It appears that many pages have been written by middle school students.

New England

2007-04-16T02:48:31Z

Bomber23k:

'''New England''' is the term used to refer to a region of the United States. The statesmaking up New England are [[Massachussetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[Rhode Island]], and [[Maine]]. This is one of the oldest regions of the United States to be colonized by the [[England|English]], and was originally settled mainly by [[Puritans]] and other religious dissidents seeking to freely practice their religion.

Currently, New England tends to vote Democratic, both locally, on a state level, and nationally, and currently, there is only one Republican member of the House of Representatives from New England.

Currently both US Senators from Maine are Republicans; Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins<ref>http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=ME</ref>. Also, both Senators from New Hampshire are Republicans; John E Sununu and Judd Greg<ref>http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=NH</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

New England

2007-04-16T02:46:58Z

Bomber23k:

'''New England''' is the term used to refer to a region of the United States. The statesmaking up New England are [[Massachussetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[Rhode Island]], and [[Maine]]. This is one of the oldest regions of the United States to be colonized by the [[England|English]], and was originally settled mainly by [[Puritans]] and other religious dissidents seeking to freely practice their religion.

Currently, New England tends to vote Democratic, both locally, on a state level, and nationally, and currently, there is only one Republican member of the House of Representatives from New England.

Both US Senators from Maine are Republicans; Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins<ref>http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=ME</ref>. Both Senators from New Hampshire are Republicans: John E Sununu and Judd Greg<ref>http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=NH</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

New England

2007-04-16T02:46:06Z

Bomber23k:

'''New England''' is the term used to refer to a region of the United States. The statesmaking up New England are [[Massachussetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[Rhode Island]], and [[Maine]]. This is one of the oldest regions of the United States to be colonized by the [[England|English]], and was originally settled mainly by [[Puritans]] and other religious dissidents seeking to freely practice their religion.

Currently, New England tends to vote Democratic, both locally, on a state level, and nationally, and currently, there is only one Republican member of the House of Representatives from New England.

Both US Senators from Maine are Republicans; Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins<ref>http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=ME</ref>. Both Senators from New Hampshire are Republicans: John E Sununu and Judd Greg<ref>http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=NH</ref>.

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-23T06:06:05Z

Bomber23k: /* No */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-23T06:03:22Z

Bomber23k: /* No */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear.
Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others.

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

User talk:Bomber23k

2007-03-23T05:20:05Z

Bomber23k:

What's with your user id name? An explanation for choosing it, please? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Nickname+half of license plate...
further inquiry?

Libertarian economics

2007-03-23T05:12:21Z

Bomber23k:

The [[Libertarian]] position on economics is that private monopolies are fine and antitrust laws, since they represent government intrusion on private business, should not exist. Libertarian economics is based very often on the discussion of wealth and how it is created in [[Adam Smith]]'s book ''Wealth of Nations,'' although the books is famous as being one that many people discuss, but few people have actually read. Adam Smith, in fact, devotes considerable discussion to monopolies, and the effects of them on pricing and the consumer. One can scroll through the articles on the websites of the libertarian Mises Institute and Cato organizations and find page after page defending private monopolies or pretending they don't exist or can't survive. For example, the Mises Institute website and found this statement about its leader, Murray Rothbard:

"Thus, for Rothbard there is no social 'problem' associated with monopoly in a free market."<ref>http://www.mises.org/story/1800</ref>

Another page of the Mises Institute it defends exclusive contracts.<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/005459.asp</ref>

In this book featured by the Mises Institute, the author advocates the "total abolition of antitrust" laws.<ref>http://www.mises.org/store/Antitrust-and-Monopoly-Anatomy-of-a-Policy-Failure-P296C1.aspx</ref>

'''Sources:''' <references/>

Patricians

2007-03-23T05:11:29Z

Bomber23k: Patricians moved to Irish Patricians: The terms "Patrician" and "plebian" refer to classical Roman class system, not middle age Irish.

The Patricians were the highest class of citizens in early [[Ireland]], composed of wealthy landowners. Although the patricians were only 10% of society, they held all the power with their three hundred member senate. Eventually, the [[plebian]] lower class gained equality with the upper class and "Patrician" became a name for any court official. [[Saint Patrick]], the patron saint of Ireland, was so named because he belonged to the patrician class.

{{stub}}