@DerHasisttot too

The book is repetitious (Annoying filler) and also speculates every now and again--however, that speculation is clearly an educated guess. Take Caligula's death. Everyone knows he was assassinated. However, the author speculates that he had himself killed.

First, Caligula thought himself a god, so death wasn't really bad--in fact it was the next step since he was pretty much at the top. Hard to do more than become a god. So, his list was done, and it was all downhill.

Second, he had a wicked going away party. A boat decked out with gold floorboards, a week long orgy, then the final day. That day he got in front of everyone in the arena, had his favorite gladiator bugger his ass and then had that irreplaceable stud executed during climax.

Third, he had placed an incompetent man to replace him--of course it was speculated that the man just played the retard so he would survive. For Caligula it was hard to look bad when you had a stuttering fool replacing you.

This timeline was very convincing to the author so he noted what he thought. But he noted it may not have been the case because, as we have noted, the past was tainted by people who hated those emperors and by time itself. In fact, the author notes their tainted testimony multiple times. What more can the author do besides that?

Of course people don't care about those notes, do they?

Oh, and watching the History Channel version--there is not much of a difference... In fact, I think he cheated and took material from that rendition.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Hehe. Reminds me of a lecture I once attended, roughly translated: "Never trust a book about Nero: Ancient propaganda."
Edit: Not even Tacitus is a credible source, he used hearsay, had an own agenda, emphasised and left out facts.

@ lawdeedaw: I looked up the book on amazon, and I tend to trust the bad reviews there because they are the least likely to be written by a publicist or the author; according to the bad review, the book is not accurate. Of course this mustn't be true.

I guess most ancient history can never be truly accurate. Historians surely would gather every source they could and puzzle it together. I wonder what is accurate and how that guy on amazon knows for a fact, haha

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have said Wrroonngg so quickly--but you presume that your readings about Rome are more extensive than mine.

Nero, Caligula and many later Emperors are examples of the human psyche let loose. Psychopaths with no restrictions on their behavior.

The Roman Republic lasted for almost 500 years--during which time--homosexuality was looked on as a vice and shameful behavior. Emperor Augustus imposed strict modesty and morality edicts--including homosexual activities--which didn't apply to him. So even in the later, Empire Era, Rome was hardly be considered, "one big, gay death machine."

"Marcus Aurelius was straight at least..." This one gave me a laugh.


The Love Letters of Emperor Marcus Aurelius and Marcus Cornelius Fronto
Excerpts from My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries (1998), Edited by Rictor Norton

From Marcus Cornelliius Fronto to Marcus Aurelius

Your lover, too, as they say, composes some amatory writings about you in the hope of enticing you with this bait, if with no other, and attracting you to himself and catching you; but such things are a disgrace and an insult and a sort of licentious cry, the outcome of stinging lust, such as those of wild beasts and fed cattle, that from sexual desire bellow or neigh or low or howl. Like to these are the lyrics of lovers. If, therefore, you submit yourself to your lover to enjoy where and when he pleases, awaiting neither time that is fitting nor leisure nor privacy, then, like a beast in the frenzy of desire, will he make straight for you and be eager to go to it not the least ashamed. . . .

"But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something..."

The role of prostitution in other societies varies--ours is not the only moral way. And the actions of the Christian church are--during most of it's history--atrocious. I thought you were talking about early Rome with it's outright destruction and pillage.

"You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their 'laws.'"

A whole country was BI? Wow--just wow.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@Boise_Lib
Now now, don't say I am wrong quiet yet. I just read up on Rome and have the advantage here (I read like fucking two days’ worth...)
Nero was more than gay (He married a man as his husband and a man as his wife...see slit in lieu of vagina,) and Caligula (Who was fucking a man while in the arena in front of everyone, then had that man beheaded during climax) was bi and Tiberius (Who was fucking Caligula after murdering his family) was bi and the typical soldier, and...wait, yeah, there were many more. Basically, 14 out of 15 were gay or gay-ish at least. By that I mean some were open, some closed. Commodus? Yeah, gay...
(Most were simply bi just to have a son btw. Otherwise it would have been just man on man.)
The whole conflict with homosexuality came in later--after the Roman Catholic Church gained power... Now, that's not saying it wasn't against the law in the early days--but that's the same as adultery, yet then orgies were common even though they were illegal... let's pretend the law doesn't matter here---because it didn't...
Marcus Aurelius was straight at least...
And yes, this was the early Rome, when it was brutal, but then that's what I was talking about when I said the world hated them. Later, yes, later they began to hate homosexual behavior. But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something...
You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their "laws."
@shuac I meant the crimes of Rome itself, not homosexuals. It's kind of hard to forgive a nation that captured and enslaved your city and then raped your male children with abandon.
@hpqp
I don't think homosexuality is girly, but that's their reasoning... Sad, so sad because it is not true.

@Boise_Lib

Now now, don't say I am wrong quiet yet. I just read up on Rome and have the advantage here (I read like fucking two days’ worth...)

Nero was more than gay (He married a man as his husband and a man as his wife...see slit in lieu of vagina,) and Caligula (Who was fucking a man while in the arena in front of everyone, then had that man beheaded during climax) was bi and Tiberius (Who was fucking Caligula after murdering his family) was bi and the typical soldier, and...wait, yeah, there were many more. Basically, 14 out of 15 were gay or gay-ish at least. By that I mean some were open, some closed. Commodus? Yeah, gay...

(Most were simply bi just to have a son btw. Otherwise it would have been just man on man.)

The whole conflict with homosexuality came in later--after the Roman Catholic Church gained power... Now, that's not saying it wasn't against the law in the early days--but that's the same as adultery, yet then orgies were common even though they were illegal... let's pretend the law doesn't matter here---because it didn't...

Marcus Aurelius was straight at least...

And yes, this was the early Rome, when it was brutal, but then that's what I was talking about when I said the world hated them. Later, yes, later they began to hate homosexual behavior. But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something...

You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their "laws."

@shuac I meant the crimes of Rome itself, not homosexuals. It's kind of hard to forgive a nation that captured and enslaved your city and then raped your male children with abandon.

@hpqp
I don't think homosexuality is girly, but that's their reasoning... Sad, so sad because it is not true.

@ant orgy!

>> ^ForgedReality:

Ahh... To recall one's first multi-female orgy... I see good things in this kid's future.


Indeed, the force is strong in this one...

>> ^ponceleon:

While I can imagine that Burning man was once a creative thing, most of what I've seen and read about it recently seems to point to it having degraded into a douche-orgy...


My brother is there right now. This is the first year that actually had tickets sell out. Apparently it's becoming a lot more commercial, but from what he tells me it's still something worth experiencing.

While I can imagine that Burning man was once a creative thing, most of what I've seen and read about it recently seems to point to it having degraded into a douche-orgy...

A Pyrrhic 'Victory'
By Thomas Sowell
8/10/2011

In Don Marquis' classic satirical book, "Archy and Mehitabel," Mehitabel the alley cat asks plaintively, "What have I done to deserve all these kittens?"

That seems to be the pained reaction of the Obama administration to the financial woes that led to the downgrading of America's credit rating, for the first time in history.

There are people who see no connection between what they have done and the consequences that follow. But Barack Obama is not likely to be one of them. He is a savvy politician who will undoubtedly be satisfied if enough voters fail to see a connection between what he has done and the consequences that followed.

To a remarkable extent, he has succeeded, with the help of his friends in the media and the Republicans' failure to articulate their case. Polls find more people blaming the Republicans for the financial crisis than are blaming the President.

Why was there a financial crisis in the first place? Because of runaway spending that sent the national debt up against the legal limit. But when all the big spending bills were being rushed through Congress, the Democrats had such an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress that nothing the Republicans could do made the slightest difference.

Yet polls show that many people today are blaming the Republicans for the country's financial problems. But, by the time Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, and thus became involved in negotiations over raising the national debt ceiling, the spending which caused that crisis in the first place had already been done -- and done by Democrats.

Had the Republicans gone along with President Obama's original request for a "clean" bill -- one simply raising the debt ceiling without any provisions about controlling federal spending -- would that have spared the country the embarrassment of having its government bonds downgraded by Standard & Poor's credit-rating agency?

To believe that would be to believe that it was the debt ceiling, rather than the runaway spending, that made Standard & Poor's think that we were no longer as good a credit risk for buyers of U.S. government bonds. In other words, to believe that is to believe that a Congressional blank check for continued record spending would have made Standard & Poor's think that we were a better credit risk.

If that is true, then why is Standard & Poor's still warning that it might have to downgrade America's credit rating yet again? Is that because of the national debt ceiling or because of the likelihood of continued runaway spending?

The national debt ceiling is just one of the many false assurances that the government gives the voting public. The national debt ceiling has never actually stopped the spending that causes the national debt to rise to the point where it is getting near that ceiling. The ceiling simply gets raised when that happens.

Just a week before the budget deal was made at the eleventh hour, it looked like the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives had scored a victory by getting the President and the Congressional Democrats to give up the idea of raising the tax rates -- and to cut spending instead. But now that the details are coming out, that "victory" looks very temporary, if not illusory.

The price of getting that deal has been having the Republicans agree to sitting on a special bipartisan Congressional committee that will either come to an agreement on spending cuts before Thanksgiving or have the budgets of both the Defense Department and Medicare cut drastically.

Since neither side can afford to be blamed for a disaster like that, this virtually guarantees that the Republicans will have to either go along with whatever new spending and taxing that the Democrats demand or risk losing the 2012 election by sharing the blame for another financial disaster.

In short, the Republicans have now been maneuvered into being held responsible for the spending orgy that Democrats alone had the votes to create. Republicans have been had -- and so has the country. The recent, short-lived budget deal turns out to be not even a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. It has the earmarks of a Pyrrhic defeat.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
This blog ended on a lame note.

Yeah, I was sorta expecting a make-up orgy to break out. Oh well.


You're and idiot.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
This blog ended on a lame note.

Yeah, I was sorta expecting a make-up orgy to break out. Oh well.


You're an idiot.

>> ^blankfist:

This blog ended on a lame note.


Yeah, I was sorta expecting a make-up orgy to break out. Oh well.

Let the orgy of forgiveness commence!

I think part of the issue is we live in a world that is so image driven people can't distinguish between image and happiness or fun. I think if people just thought about what would make them truly happy instead of how to produce the image of happiness weddings and stag parties etc would be a lot more simple. plus there'd be a lot more pre nuptials orgies

God damn there's some huge ejaculations, semens almost cumming out of you lot. Who would have thought a queer blowing off some christians could have caused such an orgy of banging at the keyboard. It's a metaphorical desert of paragraph sized dunes for anyone following this thread so I'll let Epicurus keep it brief.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

LOL It's like the argument for an all loving, omnipotent god was destroyed before Jesus was even born.

Note: This isn't why I'm not religious. I don't believe because I wasn't indoctrinated as a small child. That and the booze and drugs are still working for me da dum Ching1

Now before you, dear reader, set of oncemore into the desert of hopelessly convoluted diatribes, fill your camelskin bladders at the endlessly refreshing oasis of Bill Hicks, I believe named that after the comedian though I can't be sure of the chronology.

"The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options."

Bill Hicks - 16 December 1961 – 26 February 1994

wow, based on a link posted by @bareboards2, this guy is a complete idiot.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5RXqqf9ivc)

Here's info from the video:
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled in a 26-page opinion on Monday that the interior of the memorial is not a public forum where people may dance, even if they are silently boogying to music on headphones.

"The purpose of the memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson's legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history," Bates wrote. "The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain 'an atmosphere of calm, tranquillity, and reverence.'"

"Prohibiting demonstrations is a reasonable means of ensuring a tranquil and contemplative mood at the Jefferson Memorial," the judge added.

Upon hearing this information, what is Kokesh's response? fuck that! I can be disruptive wherever I want! Which is the sentiment that led to this video..

So knowing the recent verdict he got a troup together to go cause a disturbance because he feels like "freedom" means you can do whatever you want wherever you want.

I'm with @d3n4l1 on this one.. why not have a gay butt-fucking orgy for freedom at the holocaust memorial next week! hooray!