Joshua

Actually, some of the items they're putting in the stimulus bill are replicas of ideas I've been proposing to politicians for months, such as capping CEO salaries for bailed out companies, and a 'Buy American' campaign - which by the way I gave up on because I realized it wasn't practical. Obviously, I'm now suggesting the minimum wage-based tariff instead. At any rate, it all turned out for the best, since Congress didn't let that go through, but instead replaced it with a restriction that all public works programs under the new stimulus bill must use goods manufactured in America - which by the way I agree with, and wish I'd thought of it. Point is, Congress is more than willing to help this stuff go through, and even though big business and CEOs are protesting, the concern over the economy is getting this stuff through right now. What's more, there's a huge amount of support from the public for both those measures, so why not even more of my ideas as well? Oh, and by the way, I'm now suggesting a 15% cap on home interest rates as well. I think it could help stop the predatory lending that got us into this housing crisis in the first place. Interest rates really shouldn't get that high anyway, and only hidden clauses in contracts can really explain them getting that high, at least from what I understand.

And as one of those who voted against him in 2004, how much do you think we, the American people, could do about it? There were mass protests in the U.S. against the war. https://www.serve.com/nukeresister/135daybyday.html

Fair enough, and all valid criticisms, but ones I've already thought about - in depth. However, if it is protectionism, who is it protecting? Not just America - but workers worldwide. You see, many of the countries who are trade partners with the U.S. and have drastically lower minimum wages are not European at all - China, Venezuela, the Koreas, Saudi Arabia... In short, countries known for human rights abuses feel few qualms about providing lower minimum wages, since it then attracts more corporations interested in cheap labor, more business. Who does free trade help? The poor workers in China getting 50 cents an hour? What results is lower wages worldwide, so that communist dictatorships who don't protect their people with decent minimum wages are empowered, and the profits go increasingly to companies - not workers. America can defend this policy by pointing out that leaves off 10% of the difference to cover transportation costs between countries, and that those countries with low or no minimum wages ought to be protecting their people better ANYWAY. Who will America anger with such a policy? Its allies? Unlikely. Those few countries with higher minimum wages than America are almost exclusively European. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ It is the countries who already dislike America, such as China, Russia, and Venezuela who will dislike this move. Those with whom America has the closest ties are almost overwhelmingly the ones with equivalent minimum wages. And it is those countries, China in particular, who have been most benefiting from disproportionate trade balances with the U.S.A. China is one of the two neck-and-neck trade partners with the U.S., Canada being the other, and is the one taking away manufacturing jobs from both the U.S. and Canada - as another poster just pointed out. This bill could create incentive for other countries to follow America's lead, so that China and other communist countries will treat their workers better, provide minimum wages, and thus their workers will not keep getting paid slave wages. Again, I think China, Russia, and North Korea will be the ones angered by this, whereas European countries if anything, will likely follow suit with their own similar tariffs. It might eliminate trade with those communist countries, but hardly disrupt worldwide trade. And I think it could be argued that China and North Korea are ALREADY dangerous, and ALREADY dislike America. Agreed. Many of the soldiers would likely have to be involved in a massive public works program. I'd imagine some could be used as support for the national guard, or even police/border reserves. However, it won't be as difficult to fund as you'd think. You see, we're ALREADY spending 600 billion for the military, and only 130 billion of that is on the actual soldiers. The rest goes to procurement of military services, building equipment, etc. We're ALREADY paying them, we'd just be paying them now to be inside our country, instead of out of iit, and to actually work on our own economy - rather than economies overseas. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Actually exiting those countries will mean we spend less, since we don't have to buy the military equipment anymore (and what we have built can be stocked away), don't have to transport soldiers and goods around the world, don't have to quarter soldiers in foreign countries, etc. Plus, the money the soldiers earn and have been earning for their time in those middle eastern countries can now be put into our economy! And, since they'd stay employed, and thus not a drain on the work force, that could prove a huge, and vital, boost to our economy. In short, we'd be paying them what we're paying them already, but to stay in our country and use the money they've already been paid to help get our economy back on track! And as much as the public works stuff might cost, it would most certainly still be cheaper than the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on military non-payroll stuff. In fact, that glut of homes on the market which is driving down home prices? Some of the returning soldiers might even buy some of those homes and help fix that problem...

This is my new list of ideas for fixing the economy. I am contacting elected officials with it.Housing: 1. No extending term limits during refinancing. A 30 year-loan should stay 30 years, and if 15 years have been paid off, it shouldn?t be bumped back up to 30 years.2. Bailout conditions should be imposed, both on those to be bailed out, and who have been bailed out ? particularly on banks. Think about it ? how do you get to the root of predatory lending? By checking what the top dogs can profit from it. If we set as a bailout condition that companies can?t pay their CEOs more than 300 times the salaries of their average workers, how much incentive would those same CEOs have to cheat honest homeowners out of their cash? Nor will this hinder small businesses, for their CEOs aren?t making enough to be impacted by this. Free Trade:1. Eliminate free trade agreements.2. Institute a tariff to tax imports by 90% of the difference in national minimum wages (assuming the other country?s minimum wage is lower). So since Mexico?s minimum wage is $3.50 (but in pesos) while ours is $6.50 their imports would be taxed $2.70. No, this is not protectionism. It is simply leveling the playing field in one area ? worker wages. There are many reasons for this. First of all, if we do not, the countries who care little about their workers will profit ? and are profiting. China, North Korea, etc. Those countries with low minimum wages and few human rights protections are benefiting via much better trade balances because they attract corporations interested in cheap labor costs. And, thanks to free trade agreements, they can just ship goods around for little expense. Leveling the labor costs like this can be explained to other countries. We are only taxing by 90% to allow them that 10% for transportation costs. Our intent is not to prevent trade, but to ensure the better protection of workers and ability of American companies to compete. Nor will we anger our closest allies ? the few countries in the world with higher minimum wages than ours tend to be Western countries ? and most of them European. Right now, who is profiting from these low minimum wages? The workers in China who get paid $1 an hour? No, the vast bulk of profits are going to the corporations. Not only will such a law protect American jobs, allowing American companies to better compete with their foreign counterparts, but it will provide incentive for countries and companies worldwide to pay and treat their workers better. Iraq:1. Withdraw troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Parlay with the United Nations, both to make reparations for our rudeness in excluding them from events in the Middle East, but also to invite them to help in the governing of Iraq and Afghanistan should they ever again be willing. 2. Employ troops with service time left on home soil, and provide government employment opportunities to the rest of the soldiers, as well as programs helping them reintegrate back into society (poss. work programs, support groups, etc.). Due to our weakened economy, returning troops with no jobs will be a further stress on the economy ? which is why we can?t afford to provide them no employment opportunities upon return. We could employ some as border protectors, and others as a kind of additional police force, or create the kind of public improvement work force that Franklin D. Roosevelt used during the Great Depression. At any rate, it will be much more cost effective to employ troops within our own borders, rather than outside them. The days are gone when a war could stimulate the economy. Such happened during WWII because the whole economy had to be involved in the war effort ? men working on huge assembly lines, women sewing uniforms, etc. Now, all that is sourced out to a few corporations whose efficient machines do it all. The military is a huge part of our national budget. A single fighter jet can cost over $1 billion to manufacture. Our deficit after going into Afghanistan ballooned from $3 trillion to now over $10 trillion. It will cost less to quarter troops on home soil. We will not have to worry about transportation costs. War equipment (tanks, planes, guns) costs will be cut. Casualties will of course decrease. And furthermore, the money we are paying soldiers, as well as the money they?ve already been paid for all their service time, will now be back within the country to be spent on our own economy ? rather than overseas.

Wow, an awesome story. I'd still like to hear more about what's happened since then. How about some updates? For example, did Google ever get their act together and at least try to remedy their mistakes? You'd think they'd have some kind of way to make sure someone can't just put another out of business like that through dumb clicking. Oh, and I've been recommending you guys for years. Here's my newest creation: Where to Find Free Web Hosting - Helium I know I might've been a bit quiet on the forums lately, but that doesn't mean I'm not recommending Xisto

Thanks for the advice, but I'm still having trouble. I'm not sure how I could remove Fantastico, seeing as I can't even access it. Plus, I'm not sure if Fantastico even can be uninstalled or reinstalled from CPanel. As for file/directory permissions, I set all Gallery main folders to 7/7/7 but there are too many small folders inside those folders to change them all from 7/5/5 permissions. At any rate, the error message given looks to be the same after I changed the main folder permissions.

Alright, the Gallery module from Fantastico always used to work for my site. Now it's suddenly stopped functioning and I can't even access the control panel for it. My Iframe page linking to it gives one long error message: I checked the file manager and all the files I uploaded to the Gallery are still there as well as a lot of the installation and core files. I have no way of knowing what, if any, of the program files for it might be missing - or why they're missing. Early on I tried updating Gallery using Fantastico to the newest version. It gave me an error about not being able to update. Now today all of a sudden, even Fantastico won't work! Trying to access Fantastico gives me the following error message: I'd appreciate help in getting my Gallery back up and running, as it is a major part of my site.

Okay, thanks for the help. I'm glad the site was at least up. Apparently they're now blocking IP addresses after a certain number of failed login attempts. They unblocked the IP address 3 times while I kept not getting the password, before I finally just asked for a reset. I know they're doing this to make the accounts more secure and reduce the chance of hacking, but I don't understand why it has to be such a low number of failed login attempts (must be like 10 or so). I'd think it should be at least 20 or 30.

Well, I had a similar experience recently. As I understand it, they've begun blocking your IP address after a certain number of failed login attempts (5, 10, something like that). So then you have to get them to unblock the IP address at https://support.xisto.com/. If you can't figure out the password at all, you may have to ask them for a reset. Whether that's the case or not, I don't know, but it's a likely explanation, in my opinion.

You missed my key point about Obama... it's NOT A MATTER OF THE UNBORN. Let me say this again. Senator Barack Obama supported a practice where children who survive late-term abortions, in other words are ALREADY BORN, can be left to starve to death in soiled hospital rooms. Nor was this a one-time thing. Obama has consistently opposed numerous partial-birth abortion bills and opposed 2 different versions of this bill. That was my major point. It's one thing to defend the killing of UNBORN children... but it's a whole different story to defend the killing of newly BORN children, which is what Obama did, and what you are doing right now in defending him! Obama has falsely claimed in the past when questioned on this topic that he opposed the Illinois bill because it lacked the wording of the federal bill stating such an act would not encroach on the ruling of Roe v. Wade. However, what he failed to mention is that Senator Richard Winkel sponsored an amendment to make that bill WORD FOR WORD identical to the federal bill, and Obama, who chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, deliberately killed that amendment in his committee. Talk about hypocrisy. When a person's actions kill newly born children like this, then yes, they SHOULD be severely punished. What's wrong with that? I never said I support the death penalty. I do not support it. I think it is hypocritical for either a liberal like Obama or a conservative like George Bush to support abortion and oppose the death penalty, or vice versa. And of course, we're not even putting the right people on death row to begin with, as all those pardoned by DNA evidence can attest. You ought to read my original post better, because you seem to have missed all my major points.

It was working the day before yesterday and then it started giving me error messages about not being able to access the site. I can't access cpanel either. Neither page ever loads. I don't have this problem with any other internet pages, just my site stuff on Xisto. My site's at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ btw. This is one of the few times I'll need it up for sure so I'd appreciate if the issue can get fixed in the near future.

This is a pretty funny topic. As soon as I started reading the original post, I started thinking 'this guy is spamming to promote another web host he's an administrator for.' Devils in the guise of helpful buffaloes, eh? Chasing out all the 'good posters' huh? Probably spammers of the same ilk as the OP. No wonder he's mad, his fellow brothers in buffalo hating are being bullied around by you. I would also add that free speech should be free only so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others not to hear vulgar, obscene, or derogatory speech. The U.S. government recognizes the right to 'free speech' but that doesn't include the right to say anything, as you pointed out with the 'fire' comment. People don't have the right to swear on public television, to slander or verbally harass others, and more examples could be given. The inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The others are privileges that can be taken away if they are used to infringe on the rights of others. I've enjoyed this site enough to now begin paying for it, and have enjoyed my hosting with Xisto after trying many other allegedly 'free' hosts that were much, much worse. Xisto in many ways offers hosting that really is unparalleled on the web, as far as cost, site building tools, lack of ads, and site assistance. Thanks for providing this great service to the web community!

Very true. Rather than focusing on ourselves, we ought to focus on God, on trusting Him, on committing to Him, on putting our idols away to serve Him, on glorifying Him, on letting His will be done rather than our own. And I think the opposite is true of doing good works. We don't try to do them or be good people. We just focus on how much God loves us and on how He shows us goodness and mercy even though we don't deserve it. We then show that mercy to others because doing so pleases God and because He shows it to us, and refuses to forgive us if we won't likewise forgive others. I don't think God is looking so much for us to be good people so much as merciful people, for us to be religious people so much as loving people, or for us to be theological know-it-alls so much as holy (separate from the world's ways) and sincere in our lives. God is the only one good like Jesus said and ultimately it's all about Him.

No degree, but I'm 10 credits away from an Associates in business management - hardly relationship related Lets just say I was once in a situation so close to yours as to be ridiculously identical, and I'm simply giving advice that I hope might help you avoid some of the pitfalls I've learned are out there. Some I avoided, some I didn't. As for the public-private competition, you never know - sometimes one player can make a pretty big impact. I'll admit though that I'm not too personally familiar with hockey beyond knowing the basics of how it's played, and as far as track I sprint for fun but that's about it. Baseball is my main sport with football and basketball secondary ones. But hey, it sounds like you at least know she likes you back now, right? That's good, wasn't that a major question for most of the conversation here? Just because she moves doesn't mean you won't ever be able to go out with her. If you're really serious about her, I'd think you'd be willing to get to know her long distance and maybe in the future would get a chance to see her again. How far away is she moving? I was assuming it's a matter of in-state but the way you make it sound, it's a matter of hundreds if not thousands of miles. At any rate, it sounds like she's a person you'd value as a friend and would be able to enjoy talking to even if you can't have personal contact. Perhaps she'd appreciate the chance to maintain contact with someone during this time in her life when she's leaving everything and everyone (non-family) that she knows, and it would be a chance for you to help her.

Also, I've been thinking further about what you said the situation was like, where she's more popular. I know this isn't the common way of thinking, but I think it's the best way... to try and become the best you can for the person you care about. Not only should you look to talk to her somehow about where everything stands, but in the meantime, also use this time to become the best you can, in sports, in learning, and in character. Social status comes and goes but do what you can to make yourself a person who will succeed in life. Keep your grades up, the depression it sounds like you're going through could make you very prone to flunking right now, and you don't want to also go through losing contact with your original class as well. Over the summer you should stay active in sports but also look into a summer job because these days it's a good idea to get into the work world young. Of course, the thing with sports is it can make you prone to acne and skin problems, so you should avoid touching your face and wash your hair after sports because hands are the dirtiest part of the body and hair gets a lot of oils and stuff in it that can get on the face. Lol, I'm getting naggy, aren't I? Anyway, I want you to succeed here, good luck!

I'm a bit curious what you mean when you said your friend was hit with a statue later on... do you mean he was stunned, or that he hit you with a statue? It sounds like you're serious about this girl, and the biggest problem might be feeling awkward around her. It sounds like if you want to have a chance at getting to know her in spite of the move you need to let her know one way or the other that you'd like to communicate with her via email or some such means, if she's okay with that. Whether in letter form or face to face, it sounds like that's the right path for you even if it will be awkward. Again, the biggest danger with a situation like this is that misunderstandings will occur from a lack of honest communication. It's not the worst thing in the world if she moves because you could still have some level of contact with her. Unless she's extremely dense, which I doubt, she has to know by now that you are interested in getting to know her better... so hopefully the worst case scenario of her thinking you don't like her or aren't interested in her is not a possibility. Me, I have this funny belief in destiny. I think true love scenarios actually encounter ironies and problems like this. Just do the best you can right now to talk to her honestly and let her know how you feel because any mistakes made now in not doing that could end up coming back to haunt you years down the road. I know it's awkward and embarrassing but it sounds like you've started making the best choices you can and whatever happens you'll at least not suffer from regrets later on at not doing all you could. A moment of embarrassment is far preferable to a lifetime of regret. My advice is to not try to push the relationship but simply see if she's open to talking to you and getting to know you better via email or phone or whatever. It doesn't have to be a formal date or whatever to start off, just see if some kind of contact can begin so you can get to know her better for who she is. Joshua

My advice: communicate. Talk with her, letter form if need be, and see whether she likes you back. If it really bugs you that she's your best friend's cousin, tell her that, and possibly your best friend too (probably only after finding out she likes you back or there's no need to get into that). Your best friend may not even mind. The key thing here though is whatever the situation, you should talk to her about where things stand sooner or later. It sounds like the kind of situation that could weigh on you a long time afterwards otherwise. If you don't talk to her even if you have good motives, she could get the idea you don't like her and it's best to just be honest with her completely. If you're worried about infatuation, then make sure it's about her as a person and not just what feelings she makes you feel. Get to know her for who she is and let her be the one that's special, not some feeling. Good relationships are cemented on complete honesty, commitment, and caring about one another for who they are. If it means anything, I think it sounds like it could be something special. Good luck!

Ok, here's the thing. Germs actually are killed by the cold. Where they thrive is indoors. You don't get sick from being out in the cold, it's actually coming in and experiencing the temperature change that'll get you. Plus when you're young, your immune system works at a higher rate so if you eat very healthy and stay physically fit that could happen. I'm guessing you keep physically active, that'll raise your body temperature too so you'll be able to stay out in cold weather. It's a myth though that the cold itself makes you sick, if anything, if you could stay out in the cold a lot from that age your body would actually adjust and toughen up so the cold wouldn't affect you as much, plus since there aren't germs out where it's cold, you might get sick less. The human body has an amazing ability to adapt. It sounds like a lot of it is just being physically active. I'm guessing you're very active in sports, right? That'll make your body much more able to handle conditions for hot and cold. As for the teeth brushing, it's actually not the brushing that most keeps the teeth clean but the flossing. And it depends on what you're eating. Fruits and vegetables probably wouldn't cause as much junk on your teeth because there's less junk in them. You may even be eating some natural foods that have a cleaning effect on your teeth. Some of it might just be that you're young so the teeth haven't yellowed yet. But you might want to floss though because the real danger is the stuff in between the teeth that causes them to rot, not the stuff outside so much.

Hmm... I hear the idea coming from some people that religion is a problem in America's youth... Once I'd have jumped at this to say 'No, it isn't', but now... I almost tend to agree... in a way. I'd say the real problem isn't Christianity, but the pseudo-Christianity that teaches what the Bible clearly teaches the opposite of, that it's alright to harm others. Roman Catholicism taught this a milennia ago and used it to kill off all the 'heretics' (who I think were the real Christians). The Puritans taught this centuries ago and killed off 'witches'. And today? Perhaps the most dangerous form of Christianity is the warmongering George-Bush version that says it's alright to go on crusades against other peoples and God supports it. And Islam? It's not just some of the people that believe it, but the scriptures themselves that support it, the harming of other people. Jihad is an idea clearly presented and the terrorists the ones simply understanding the Koran best. I don't think religion itself is the problem. People will use anything, religion, politics, even sports as an excuse for their wrong actions, a prop for their evil motives. Religion is just an easy resort since so many people look to it as authoritative so it's nice to make it look like it's on your side. The problem with saying religion is the problem is that everyone has religion in the sense of just beliefs about whether or not God exists and personal convictions. Atheists are religious in some sense. You look at the communist nations of the world like China and the U.S.S.R. who actively banned religion, were they the most moral of countries? Obviously it's not just religion that's the problem. The problem is people who think anything gives them the right to infringe upon the rights of others. The problem is people who want to take vengeance and live in hatred, because then they just become what they hate. Martin Luther King Jr. was religious but pointed this out, would people say he's part of the problem because he's religious? A problem with religion is it's just one of many factors that can be used by people to consider themselves different from other people. God didn't make everyone the same so people have a tendency to consider others different and alienated from them. Good religion is that which tells us to love our neighbors and do good for them in ways that matter, not with words but actions. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of others and see where they're coming from, only then can we love one another like God tells us to.

Of course, if people want to kill each other, it's a belief so it should be alright, right? Once a 'right' infringes upon the rights of others, there should be boundaries placed of course. And no, I'm not a conservative by the way. I don't believe in voting conservative or liberal but in thinking for myself on the issues. As a result I oppose abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research but also the Iraq War, free trade pacts like NAFTA, and I'd like to see illegal immigrants given a path to citizenship. You want to make this a conservative vs. liberal issue. With me, that's not an option because I'm neither I voted for neither Bush or Kerry in 2004, but for a third-party candidate.

Barack Obama, Baby Killer Abortion is a controversial topic these days. Some cant agree that children are truly human beings before leaving the womb. Some believe there should be exceptions when the mothers life is in danger or when rape has occurred. However, until 2007 it was legal for children to survive abortions and be left to starve to death on hospital beds. Theres a lot the average American doesnt know about Mr. Barack Obama. The silver-tongued demagogue is to many just a promising young Illinois senator with the chance to become the first black president. But during Obamas time representing Illinoisans in the Senate, he opposed a bill that was voted in favor of 98-0 (Barack Obama voted present). That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. You see, under U.S. law babies who survived what is known as Partial-Birth Abortion, also known as late-term abortion, could legally be left to starve to death on hospital beds. Numerous hospitals in the Chicago-land area practiced this infanticide, including the infamously named Christ Hospital, at which nurse Jill Stanek worked. She was one of those who testified before Congress about children whod died in her arms, and other horrors that had resulted from this law. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act would have stopped this outrage, but Barack Obama opposed it in the Senate, threatening that it would be judicially challenged. It was, which was why the bill was passed in 2003, but not upheld in the courts until the past year. Barack Obama is not the moderate he presents himself to be. He is a hardcore abortionist to the point that he doesnt believe babies who survive abortions should have the opportunity to survive, even though when given the opportunity they can, and have in the past. They are for all intents and purposes just prematurely born children, and Obama supports the mass killing of these little kids. The following are the exact statements pertaining to the bill made by Obama, as recorded in the senate transcript, pages 84-90, which you can read for yourself: Additional Reading: - Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever by Terrence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief. - "Links to Barack Obama's votes on IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act" by Jill Stanek. - "Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama" by Jill Stanek. - "Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role" by Kate Zernicke and Jeff Zeleny, New York Times.

Exactly what I was talking about. Here in the U.S., it's guilty until proven innocent when you're a guy accused of a sexual crime. Even when you get out of prison society will continue to punish and it's very difficult for those accused to find jobs. I realize this is a sensitive issue for people, but we can't even put the right people on Death Row as is! Look at all the people getting pardoned! People really don't mind killing innocents just so they can put the guilty to death? I bet they'd change their tune when they're the ones on Death Row for crimes they didn't commit. All it takes these days is for a girl to get mad at someone and accuse them of sexual abuse for that person's life to get completely ruined. It takes no evidence at all aside from one vague testimony. There is zero accountability for judges and prosecutors who make this happen.

Obama showed his real nature when he argued against the votes of those in Florida or Michigan counting, and then suggested that if they count that half of them should automatically be counted as his even though he'd be getting many votes that weren't cast for him. Personally, I dislike both Clinton and Obama, but I REALLY dislike Obama. I'm an Illinoisan who supported Alan Keyes in 2004 when he ran against Obama. Obama used the same mudslinging tactics he is now. People outside Illinois don't seem to realize what a snake this guy is. Obama isn't some moderate, he's the most pro-abortion candidate in America. The guy opposed a bill (he chose to vote present after arguing against it since he couldn't find support) that was voted in favor of 98-0, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It was meant to stop infanticide and the killing of children who survive abortions by leaving them to starve to death on hospital beds. The bill was passed in 2003 but not upheld in the courts until the past year thanks to continued resistance from Obama and his cohorts, which Obama warned would happen. Me, I'm not going to vote for Clinton or Obama because of their support for abortion, or for McCain because he supports the Iraq War. I'll go support some third-party candidate so I can have a clean conscience when this is all over. I don't like the "lesser of two evils" mindset.

Ooh, history stuff! I like some of the points, but for different reasons than what you give. For example, I think the decline of morals led to the fall of the empire not because it weakened the army, but because it led people to rise up against Rome. With Rome they'd feed people to lions and stick heads on stakes and kill anyone who got in their way. With some of those insane emperors, there was simply no justice to be seen. Rome's dictators could be as bloodthirsty as any English monarch and that resulted in a lot of people wanting to see the empire changed or else crumble. With Christianity, that's a related issue. The people saw their friends and neighbors being killed peacefully for what they believed, that couldn't have influenced patriotism for Rome. Also, I would suggest that God actually destroyed the Roman empire for playing a part in the killing of His Son and persecuting His people. If you read Daniel 9, it actually predicts the Romans would destroy the temple of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) after Jesus (the Messiah) came. If God punished the Jewish leaders for killing their Messiah, how much more the pagan nation who participated? Also, I would propose an interesting theory of mine... what if Rome didn't die? What if it just changed? Roman Catholicism is essentially a merger of the two forces that killed Jesus, Jewish Pharasaism and the Roman Empire. I don't buy that Rome's empire suddenly adopted Christianity. The Christianity adopted was a warfaring religion with nothing in common to that of Jesus' where we're called to love our enemies and do good to those that hurt us. Rather than distancing from idol worship the way Paul and the early Christians, it embraced paganism wholeheartedly. I believe Roman Catholicism was a fake Christianity. Rome couldn't defeat Christianity by killing all the Christians because more kept coming to Christ. So instead it made a fake Christianity that it then used to declare as heretics all the real Christians. If you look at the early history of Roman Catholicism in destroying 'heretics', it's very similar to how the Roman Empire persecuted the early Christians.

I guess the thing is, even if dishonesty and pretending to be someone you're not made you popular, would you really want it? The way towards something of even more value, meaning in life, comes from building relationships with others that are based on honesty and transparency. Talking about tough subjects with people close to you while being honest from the heart may cause disagreements, but time and again it shows itself to be the way to move forward in meaningful ways in your life and your interactions with other people. I firmly believe a lot of the problems in the world could be fixed if people would just sit down and talk honestly with one another about what's on their hearts or what they hold against one another.