The story of the Roman emperor Gaius (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, son of Germanicus) is a really good counter example for you. He was a likable, cultured, well educated young man who just turned out to be entirely unsuitable for the job thrust upon him. Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia has an article summarising some of the main points, but finding a book on the subject would be better.>> ^Longswd:

That's an old saw I've always considered to be fallacious. It's not that power corrupts, it's that power is attractive to the corruptible and why it should never be granted to those who seek it. A Catch-22 for any democratic elective process (or any form of governance in general, really). I don't know the answer, I just know that humans suck.

Perhaps it is from a Anglophone cultural distinctive to keep a large area of uninhabitable lands near your home?

"Julius Caesar, in his famous account of the Gallic Wars of the 50s BC, provided readers at home with a blood-curdling description of the Germanic tribes he encountered in battle:

'The various tribes regard it as their greatest glory to lay waste as much as possible of the land around them and to keep it uninhabited. They hold it a proof of a people's valour to drive their neighbours from their homes, so that no-one dare settle near them. No discredit attaches to plundering raids outside tribal frontiers. The Germans say that they serve to keep young men in training and prevent them from getting lazy.'"

- Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/romanpropaganda_article_01.shtml

Praise from Caesars.

Throw in a couple of McGriddle for breakfast, and you'll be well over 5000. Those things are tasty but insanely high in calories, for their size.>> ^marinara:
5000 calories is excessive but not insane

Breakfast:
1 Steak Egg and Cheese Bagel (660 Calories)
1 Hash Brown (150)
1 Large Orange Juice (22 oz) (280)
Large Coffee with 2 creams and 2 sugars (70)
Breakfast = 1160 Calories
Lunch:
Big Mac (540)
Large Fries (500)
Large Coke (310)
McFlurry w/ Oreos (580)
Lunch: 1930 Calories
Dinner:
Angus Burger with Bacon and Cheese (790)
Side Salad with Caesar Dressing (210)
Large Fries (500)
Large Coke (310)

5000 calories is excessive but not insane

Breakfast:

1 Steak Egg and Cheese Bagel (660 Calories)
1 Hash Brown (150)
1 Large Orange Juice (22 oz) (280)
Large Coffee with 2 creams and 2 sugars (70)

Breakfast = 1160 Calories

Lunch:

Big Mac (540)
Large Fries (500)
Large Coke (310)
McFlurry w/ Oreos (580)

Lunch: 1930 Calories

Dinner:

Angus Burger with Bacon and Cheese (790)
Side Salad with Caesar Dressing (210)
Large Fries (500)
Large Coke (310)

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Jesus wouldn't vote.


Exactly! Can't tell you how tired I get of hearing people try to justify their political bias with their religion.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and God that which is God's" is a pretty clear statement, I always thought. But selective hearing runs rampant in 'Western' Christianity.

I guess you missed all his other comments. How's the peanut gallery treating you?

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>


I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.
Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>



I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.

Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say? It makes your dialogue almost purely hyperbole. Slow down son and listen..the methods historians use to verify evidence for something is not an exact science..if you were to say Jesus didn't exist then you would have to say a lot of people in ancient history didn't exist either, because the evidence for Jesus is far better than someone like say Alexander the Great. It's not nonsense, it's reality..if you want to say the methods are bad then discard most of what you know about world history. If however you accept those methods then you should also accept Jesus was a historical person..your position is fairly ridiculous.

>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br> </em>

So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.

There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

>> ^shinyblurry:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm

@Sketch

There are quite a few reasons that the resurrection should be taken to be valid, or in your case, much more carefully considered..now, the problem with your view is that you give the bible absolutely no credit at all for having any truth in it, because you're caught up on things like the miracles. That is your primary objection, yet you have to realize that the evidence for the gospels is much greater than a great deal of ancient history. We have more evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than we do for Julius Caesar.

However, there is plenty that has been confirmed as true, some of which I've already mentioned..such as the fact that 50 people in the NT alone are confirmed to be historical, including two of the most major figures in the resurrection narative, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas the high priest. Or the fact that the bible has been proven to be 100 percent reliable archaelogically. So your utter dismissal of the bible as having any fact to it puts you at odds with pretty much every practicing historian and bible scholar today.

I'll give you a few reasons..First of all, you have the empty tomb, a fact acknowledged as accurate today and undisputed even by the Jewish authorities at the time of his death. You have the fact that women were the first witnesses. In those days, a womens testimony was not considered valid. In fact you had pagans agruing for centuries that the resurrection wasnt true simply on the fact that women had seen it first. If the disciples invented the story, they never would have used women as witnesses, because it severally undermined their case in the eyes of jew and gentile alike. The fact it was left in greatly enhances its credibility.

You have all of the eye witnesses who saw Jesus, over 500 in number. Eye witnesses who were still alive at the time the gospels were written. You have the fact that the disciples were brutally tortured and ultimately martyred for preaching the gospel of the resurrected Jesus. They were direct eye witnesses of the fact and so they would never go to their deaths refusing to recant for something they knew was a lie. You have external sources confirming the resurrection. These are just a few reasons to at least investigate further.

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm




>> ^Sketch:
Good evidence that He rose from the dead!? Oh, this ought to be good. Please, do tell exactly how there is any evidence at all for the truth of the resurrection myth, when the various gospels of the infallible bible don't even agree on the specific details of what even happened during the resurrection. But PLEASE don't once again use biblical passages to tell me that the resurrection happened anyway!>> ^shinyblurry:
It is possible to prove it. It all comes down the resurrection of Christ..If He rose from the dead, if it is indeed a historical event, then God does exist and everything the bible says is true. Anyone can claim to be the Son of God, but no one but the Son of God could prove it by rising from the dead. There is plenty of good evidence to suggest He did rise from the dead. It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that what Christ said is true..and therefore, if you honesty seek Him, you will find Him..and He will show you He is real. >> ^Sketch:
You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!
You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!
Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!

I have so many issues with this video, I don't think I'll be able to recall all of them to write down. I'll preface all of this by saying that I'm an avid poker player and during my senior year of college ('04-'05) & the year after I graduated, online poker was my sole source of income. I now make trips to AC from NYC when my hectic work/social schedule allows.

1 - You think US casinos didn't want in on online gambling from jump street? Wrong. This is a HUGE industry. Casinos aren't the RIAA; they're willing to adapt to new sources of revenue & have wanted in since online gambling started started gaining traction in the US. I don't know what happened recently with Caesar's, but I assure you that casinos have been lobbying for a long time to get a piece of the action. There have been stories for at least the last 7 years about US casinos wanting to operate online gambling sites.

2 - I'm pretty sure that online gambling is not actually illegal. What's illegal is running an online gambling site. Very important distinction. What's also illegal is US financial institutions transferring money to gambling sites. None of this has any bearing on the players. If you can manage to get money to a site, you haven't broken any laws, the bank or credit card company has. This too is a very important distinction from "online gambling is illegal." Online gambling isn't illegal. Operating an online gambling site in the US is illegal. A bank giving money to an offshore site is illegal (this law was only passed ~4 years ago). But gambling online is not illegal.

3 - Are TYT really arguing that gambling should be legal everywhere and that antigambling legislature is a purely moral issue? This is sort of ridiculous. It's just good sense. I believe poker rooms should be legalized nationwide, but I don't agree that all gambling should be. Providing every member of the population the opportunity to play the slots after a hard day of work is a very, very bad idea. Not because the bible says it's wrong, but just from an economic standpoint. They seem to be arguing that the gov't disallowing online gambling is depriving people of their rights, as if gambling isn't illegal almost everywhere in the US. Very weak & (IMO) misguided argument here.

4 - One thing they're right about, though they didn't get into it at all, is that this is going to be VERY bad for some people. Some folks who make their living doing this will have anywhere from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up on these sites. I guarantee that freezing their accounts has ruined a number of people's lives. I would have liked some more on this topic. (Though I understand I'm probably not in the majority here)

5 - Can you get the fucking aspect ratio right on Cenk's camera? Is it really so hard to center-cut a 16:9 shot? Or is Cenk just trying to make himself look skinny? Speaking of which, why isn't this whole spot 16:9? It's 2011. How long are SD aspect ratios going to be around?

That's all I remember, and I don't want to rewatch this video and get worked up all over again. Bad reporting IMO. I feel like I say that about TYT very often.

This whole discussion reminds me of a scene in the Naked Gun which I'm unfortunately unable to find currently.


Mayor: Drebin, I don't want any more trouble like you had last year on the southside. Understand? That's my policy.
Frank: Yes. Well, when I see 5 weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of the park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards. That's my policy.
Mayor: That was a Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar, you moron! You killed 5 actors!

>> ^FNORDcinco:

Old dude swearing!


What's classic is that throughout the show, Col. Potter was constantly swearing. Albeit, in his own language, but it was swearing none the less. Just to name a few:

"Crock of Beans"
"Mule fritters!"
"Monkey Muffins!"
"Buffalo bagels!"
"Buffalo chips!"
"Great Balls of Fire!"
"Busload of Bushwah!"
"Hells bells!"
"Cow cookies!"
"Great Caesar's Salad!"
"Horse Hockey" <-- one of my favs I randomly shout at people to confuse the cow cookies out of them.

It's actually Clamato Juice. This + vodka + Worchesteshirehsireshire Sauce + Horse Radish = Bloody Caesar. Who here has had one? If you haven't, you are missing out, big time. Good hang over cure... >> ^pmkierst:

All I can say, having lived there for a couple of decades, is that it is a good thing weed doesn't grow well there. Damn fine people who like a little drink now and again.