Posted on 11/24/2012 5:28:20 PM PST by Indy Pendance
How evil are the two.
Comments are expected.
Jeremiah Wright was well-known for attracting to his church young, upwardly mobile gay men who he could meld with unattractive but interesting young black women (to provide beards for said young "down low" black men).
It is apparently well-known in Chicago that this was the situation with Obama and Michelle (Wright's program was called, well, "the Program").
Anyone who thinks Obama is a straight male needs to get out more (and not getting out enough ain't a bad thing).;-)
I do not study or research Roman leaders, I’ll study Christ all day long, to study ancient Roman leaders is a waste of time.
Today I went for an “American bald eagle” tattoo on my arm. But the guy used too much black shadeing so I stopped him from putting in the brown, thinking it would just make it darker.
So now I have pretty much a black eagle.
That’s embarrassing!
Have I ever embarrassed myself? Sure. But I learn from my mistakes.
The thing about this particular thread is that it was presented without context. Anyone who did any research on Claudius (fictional or real) at all would realize that while he may have been disfigured, but he wasn’t an idiot. My comment stemmed from the fact that Indy Pendance challenged us to research a thread he posted when he clearly didn’t do so himself.
I think one could draw parallels between Obama and some Roman emperors. But I think Claudius is a poor choice for comparison.
Claudius was the best Roman Emperor of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty after Augustus.
If you want to compare Obama to the Julio-Claudians, Nero or Gaius (Caligula) would be far better candidates than Claudius.
I tinks he is a idiot for believing that communism is the cure for global ills.
Communism, like islam (another one of his belief structures held dear), has never produced anything good.
He is also awfully short sighted and a idiot in wanting to remove America from the global stage.
That said...I would like an eagle or an American flag or a cross.
Are you talking about Claudius the Julio-Claudian emperor, Claudius Gothicus the emperor who reigned from 268 to 270, or Hamlet’s father?
I am 47 and was called old by them.
More embarrassment...
That’s the opinion of every reputable historian of Rome over the last 300 years or so.
Have you ever read ANY modern work on Roman history at all? Ever read about Claudius’ reform of the legal system? His attempts at orthographic reform? Anything?
How about his military reforms? C. Thomas, “Claudius and the Roman Army Reforms”, in: Historia, volume 53 (2004).
Claudius’ legal reforms were substantial. He greatly modified the law of treasons, suppressed informers, and checked the use of torture. He tried to restore the right of legislation to the plebs, and revived the ancient plebiscita. But he soon found, as others had found before him, that this was unworkable, and all his important legislation had to be enacted by means of Senatm consulta.
Various important public works were carried out during the reign of Claudius. The two great aqueducts, which Gaius must have the credit of commencing, were finished by Claudius. A new harbour was constructed at Ostia, which proved of the greatest utility; and efforts were made on a considerable scale to drain the Fucine Lake, though the works were not permanently successful.
During the reign of Claudius the conquest of Britain was seriously undertaken. The subjugation of the Britons, who lived in the ends of the earth, had been in the minds of many. Julius Caesar had twice attempted the conquest; Augustus had twice prepared for it; Tiberius had declared it necessary; even Gaius had set out on the expedition, though he got no further than Boulogne. Claudius determined that the work should be accomplished. Perhaps the reputed wealth of the island attracted him, more likely he was willing that his name should be associated with the adding of another province to the empire.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Claudius+legal+reforms&sig=q59oeMvV-m6GsdlZThX-LBWeBkY&ei=ToGxUNm8H_PK0AHZk4HIAw&id=x0o5AQAAIAAJ&ots=MMSzMggNCI#v=onepage&q=Claudius%20legal%20reforms&f=false
“Obama who is nothing but a lame figurehead”
You win the contest. “A lame figurehead” — Guess the poster was comparing Obama to Claudius in I, Claudius. But then who knows what the poster meant.
Claudius was a decent Roman Emperor, considering what he did for the Empire as a whole. Obama, on the other hand, is not quite as good as many Roman Emperors were regarding the better of America.
Three Things I can think of are these:
1) Mercernary Support: Early Roman Emperors were very strict, and very pressing, to get conquered peoples and aliens to assimilate into the Roman Empire by a path to citizenship. In the United States, there’s little reason to be an alien and want to also be a citizen. In fact, the propaganda goes the other way, don’t be subject or involved as a full-fledged citizen or tested/educated about being a U.S. Citizen to prove it The scary part is that getting people to be useful and yet not citizens carries parallels to the reliance on mercernary support, which allowed for the native Roman rulership to get overthrown, for something as trivial as not having the gold to pay the tribal mercernary armies. The fact that some politicians, and possibly sides of the political spectrum have set up laws allowing for such free benefits whether with or without citizenship will allow all sorts of corruption, and weakening. Obama’s military policy also involves indirect fighting, a problem for the Romans, because like them, the military policy uses mercernary and proxy forces, and puts into office people just as much a tyrant and enemy as the previous ruler, if not worse. Morsi in Egypt is already proving that overthrowing Mubarak wasn’t much of an improvement.
2) Earlier Emperors, including Claudius, had a genuine concern about trade, and controlling what comes in, and what comes out of the Roman Empire, they were also actually limited by a budget that depended on tangible materials (precious metals) Our economy doesn’t, and therefore is subject to difficulties from deficit, and potentially severe inflation. It’s all a question of when it really kicks in.
Claudius probably suffered from birth defects. He apparently twitched, drooled and farted uncontrollably, which put a serious crimp in his social life.
But it is not likely these affected his intellect. Before becoming Emperor he was a well-respected historian, writing a history of the Etruscans and the only known multi-volume history of Carthage, which unfortunately have not survived. However, there are also no surviving claims that these were not useful works. He was shunted aside in the scramble for power largely because he started writing a history of the Civil Wars that was less than entirely laudable of Augustus.
Idiots don’t write respected works of history. At least not without ghost-writers, which seem to be a modern invention.
All of his relatives had died and/or been poisoned or murdered, notably his brother Germanicus, in the faction fights of the imperial family. It is likely he exaggerated his disabilities and functioned as something of a court jester to his nephew Emperor Gaius Caligula.
When Caligula and his wife and daughter were murdered, Claudius was the only survivor of the family and was acclaimed emperor primarily for lack of an alternative. He was probably the best emperor of his family after Augustus and possibly Tiberius, although this was admittedly a pretty low bar to jump.
The portrayal of Claudius in I, Claudius by Robert Graves and in its BBC dramatization is compelling. But it should be remembered that this characterization is a heavily fictionalized retelling, and is not necessarily historical truth.
Robert Graves' novels about Claudius draw heavily from Suetonius' Life of Claudius, I think.
All the surviving historians of the time appear to have lied and invented stuff with a freedom and enthusiasm modern propagandists can only envy.
The notion that historians are supposed to limit themselves to what actually happened is a fairly modern one.
The “histories” of the time were probably influenced by the Roman law courts, which were a free-for-all where both sides lied and invented evidence with the greatest freedom. There was nothing even vaguely resembling modern rules of evidence. Victory went not to the side that proved its case logically, based on the evidence, but to the one that most effectively blackened the opposition’s character.
These “historians,” however, especially Suetonius, are highly entertaining.
Well, in the sense that both require a loyal praetorian guard to protect them they are similar.
But really, Claudius was declared emperor of Rome after Caligula was assassinated by the praetorian guard. He was not evil like Caligula (who was insane).
He wrote a history of Augustus’ reign that caused him grief, and he wrote major works which included an Etruscan history and eight volumes on Carthaginian history, as well as an Etruscan Dictionary and a book on dice playing.
So, in that way he was waaay smarter than obamao, and is generally regarded as a decent ruler for his time.
obamao on the other hand, a dangerous narcissist with extremely limited abilities other than driving the alinsky marxist destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Evil incarnate— stupid, dumb angry evil.
Islam is a political system cloaked as a religion and O bows to it
Only one I can compare him to is The Serpent
No study is a waste of time. Furthermore, it is thanks to a Roman leader that the western world became Christianized. And the mother of that leader is a saint.
I love the way you think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.