NationStates Jolt Archive

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interrèd with their bones.
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest --
For Brutus is an honorable man,
So are they all, all honorable men --
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me.
But Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept.
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And sure he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause.
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason!
Bear with me.
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Et tu, Republicans...

Just musing on the classics after watching some good 'ol Kerry-bashing on the telly...

Hollow rhetoric to rouse a rabble to war? Sounds familiar.

If your name's Cinna, I'd expect to be stopped at a lot of airports.

Before the time of JC
"Hail Caesar! Leader of Roman Empire ..."

Now
"Support Bush! USA! USA!"

Before the time of JC
"Hail Caesar! Leader of Roman Empire ..."

Now
"Support Bush! USA! USA!"
Honourable men do not deceive their fellow citizens.
Honourable men do not stuff billions of dollars into their rich business friends pockets while yelling at the unemployed worker to get a job.
Honourable men do not send men and women off to fight an immoral war.
Honourable men do not pour hundreds of billions of dollars to fight an enemy that is no threat to them, while the poverty level increases in their own country.
Honourable men do the noble thing and admit their mistakes openly and seek solutions to prevent making the same mistake over and over.
Honourable men seek peace not war.

Before the time of JC
"Hail Caesar! Leader of Roman Empire ..."

When was Julius Caeser leader of the Roman Empire?

Before the time of JC
"Hail Caesar! Leader of Roman Empire ..."

Now
"Support Bush! USA! USA!"
Honourable men do not deceive their fellow citizens.
Honourable men do not stuff billions of dollars into their rich business friends pockets while yelling at the unemployed worker to get a job.
Honourable men do not send men and women off to fight an immoral war.
Honourable men do not pour hundreds of billions of dollars to fight an enemy that is no threat to them, while the poverty level increases in their own country.
Honourable men do the noble thing and admit their mistakes openly and seek solutions to prevent making the same mistake over and over.
Honourable men seek peace not war.

Caesar (Julius) is corrupt as they come as well! At least he fought his own wars and won.
I don't like Bush either.

When was Julius Caeser leader of the Roman Empire?

From when he assumed the title of dictator in 48 BC up until his death in 44 BC. Just 'cause he never accepted the title of king doesn't mean he wasn't running the show.

What Red Dwarf has to say on 'men of honour': "Your heroes are all people like Caesar, Patton, and various other gits!"

Caesar was a cunning, manipulative political and military genius with a suave public image and an ability to think on his feet.

Any comparison with George Bush in those areas is ludicrous. Both, however, were militaristic mass-murderers-by-proxy who thought absolutely nothing of putting a few thousand 'barbarians' to the sword in order to boost their popularity.

Unless this means that the Israeli Genocide Defence Force is going to be wiped out by Mt. Vesuvius though, it's only an amusing parallel, nothing more.

the thing you have to understand about shakespeare was he was a political hack who wrote to please to political view of the court of elizabeth the first. defending ceasatr and putting down brutus was popular amoungst people supporting the divine right of kings. just like the bard made joan of arc an evil witch, and macbeth a murderer, because those were polular positions for a loyal subject to take in the reign of good queen bess.

When was Julius Caeser leader of the Roman Empire?

From when he assumed the title of dictator in 48 BC up until his death in 44 BC. Just 'cause he never accepted the title of king doesn't mean he wasn't running the show.

Caesar never took a crown, but was killed because we wanted it despite this public refusals (showmanship). Ironically all subsequent Roman Emperors are "Caesar". He was "Dictator for life" at the time I think.

When was Julius Caeser leader of the Roman Empire?

From when he assumed the title of dictator in 48 BC up until his death in 44 BC. Just 'cause he never accepted the title of king doesn't mean he wasn't running the show.

Rome wasn't an empire when he was "running the show"

Before the time of JC
"Hail Caesar! Leader of Roman Empire ..."

Now
"Support Bush! USA! USA!"
Honourable men do not deceive their fellow citizens.
Honourable men do not stuff billions of dollars into their rich business friends pockets while yelling at the unemployed worker to get a job.
Honourable men do not send men and women off to fight an immoral war.
Honourable men do not pour hundreds of billions of dollars to fight an enemy that is no threat to them, while the poverty level increases in their own country.
Honourable men do the noble thing and admit their mistakes openly and seek solutions to prevent making the same mistake over and over.
Honourable men seek peace not war.

Thank you CanuckHeaven..

I couldnt have said it better myself.

Bush is nothing like honorable, and no one can prove otherwise.

How dare you criticize our leader?
:x
You must support terrorism then! Only his decisive response has saved us from Saddam's terror legions!

I personally support bush...though i dont see how he relates to ceasar and if you say that the enemy that we are fighting isnt a threat remember 9/11 and 3/11.

Like Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Not!

When was Julius Caeser leader of the Roman Empire?

From when he assumed the title of dictator in 48 BC up until his death in 44 BC. Just 'cause he never accepted the title of king doesn't mean he wasn't running the show.

Caesar never took a crown, but was killed because we wanted it despite this public refusals (showmanship). Ironically all subsequent Roman Emperors are "Caesar". He was "Dictator for life" at the time I think.

Ironically, had they not killed Julius Caesar on the Ides of March, there would have been a much greater likelihood of Rome returning to a Republic. All killing Caesar did was enable Augustus to seize even more power, and more permanently as well.

Augustus wasn't that bad. At least, compared to 90% of the guys who came after him.

I highly recommend Suetonius' Twelve Caesars for an insight into precisely how civilised the Roman Empire was.

Augustus wasn't that bad. At least, compared to 90% of the guys who came after him.

I highly recommend Suetonius' Twelve Caesars for an insight into precisely how civilised the Roman Empire was.

I hate Suetonius. So dry.

I was just saying that they killed Caesar because they feared he was becoming too much of a dictator, but all killing him did was usher in 500 years of dictatorship. Had he just died naturally, the people likely wouldn't have accepted his successor, and the Republic would probably have been restored.

I hate Suetonius. So dry.

I was just saying that they killed Caesar because they feared he was becoming too much of a dictator, but all killing him did was usher in 500 years of dictatorship. Had he just died naturally, the people likely wouldn't have accepted his successor, and the Republic would probably have been restored.

They didn't fear Caeser being a dictator. They were worried about him being a king, after the three terrible kings in the Roman history.

It certainly wasn't dictatorship during the time of the Empire. Senators were very important during the time of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire only really declined during the times of heavy in-breeding amongst the Imperial family.

You thread's title reminds me of an article my friend wrote for the paper. In it he says that though he is proud that Bush took action, he hates the hell out of him

Before the time of JC
"Hail Caesar! Leader of Roman Empire ..."

Now
"Support Bush! USA! USA!"
Honourable men do not deceive their fellow citizens.WMD may yet be found. For months, people were asking "where's Saddam?" but we got him. It's only a matter of time. Also, the intel that Bush had was the same as that of the UN, but nobody seems interested in that...
Honourable men do not stuff billions of dollars into their rich business friends pockets while yelling at the unemployed worker to get a job.The President can't tell companies to hire people. He doesn't have infinite power and he doesn't control every aspect of the country. In case nobody has recently checked the stats, job growth is picking up steam. Also, what Bush is doing by "stuffing billions of dollars into their 'rich business friends' pockets" is called expansionary monetary policy. According to Economics: 13th edition the only way the government can promote economic growth is to
1) cut taxes: check.
2) increase spending: check.
According to the book, there is an inevitable downside to expansionary monetary policy, and that is that there will be a deficit (check).
The only other stance that government can take according to the textbook is contractionary monetary policy, which serves to control demand-pull inflation during boom times. This involves raising taxes and cutting spending, and tends to create a surplus. Why wasn't this used?
1) inflation is incredibly low
2) in case anyone checked the stats, the economy was going down at the end of the Clinton administration. Bush reacted to stop the slide, but then came 9-11, the CEO scandals, one-right-after the other. It created a slightly chaotic economic situation.
Honourable men do not send men and women off to fight an immoral war.Number of Iraqi civilians killed per year under Saddam's regime: >100,000
Number of Iraqi civilians killed per year after Saddam's regime: <50,000
Enough said.
Honourable men do not pour hundreds of billions of dollars to fight an enemy that is no threat to them, while the poverty level increases in their own country.If 9-11 had been prevented, we never would have found out what they planned and, provided their attack plan were declassified (unlikely), Bush's opponents would simply say it was scare tactics to boost his popularity and get the Patriot act passed. A very similar situation exists with Iraq.
Honourable men do the noble thing and admit their mistakes openly and seek solutions to prevent making the same mistake over and over.Bush has made mistakes. I don't deny that. However, if Bush admits to them during an election year, let's just say it's political suicide. The Kerry campaign would hash and rehash it until November.
Honourable men seek peace not war.I agree, but the war on terror was thrust upon us, not the other way around.

Bush is only "honorable" to someone who has the values of a scumbag

Bush is only "honorable" to someone who has the values of a scumbag

And yet... :?

Like Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Not!
DOUBLE NOT!! Try Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, bin Laden et al!!

mmhmmm, you believe that taking over Iraq's oilfields and appointing american big business to run Iraq will actually stop terrorism? hell no! The man is an amoral butcher intent on finishing the job his father couldn't in Iraq!

Before the time of JC
"Hail Caesar! Leader of Roman Empire ..."

Now
"Support Bush! USA! USA!"
Honourable men do not deceive their fellow citizens.

WMD may yet be found. For months, people were asking "where's Saddam?" but we got him. It's only a matter of time. Also, the intel that Bush had was the same as that of the UN, but nobody seems interested in that...
Then WHY please tell me WHY the US kicked out the UN inspectors who were doing a credible job of looking for these so called WMD? WHY WHY WHY
Honourable men do not stuff billions of dollars into their rich business friends pockets while yelling at the unemployed worker to get a job.

The President can't tell companies to hire people. He doesn't have infinite power and he doesn't control every aspect of the country. In case nobody has recently checked the stats, job growth is picking up steam. Also, what Bush is doing by "stuffing billions of dollars into their 'rich business friends' pockets" is called expansionary monetary policy. According to Economics: 13th edition the only way the government can promote economic growth is to
1) cut taxes: check.
2) increase spending: check.
According to the book, there is an inevitable downside to expansionary monetary policy, and that is that there will be a deficit (check).
The only other stance that government can take according to the textbook is contractionary monetary policy, which serves to control demand-pull inflation during boom times. This involves raising taxes and cutting spending, and tends to create a surplus. Why wasn't this used?
1) inflation is incredibly low
Have you checked out Bush's economic record since taking office?

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_allcharts.pdf

And from the IMF:

http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2004/04/14/rtr1332130.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/politics/07CND-FUND.html?ex=1083556800&en=d8a51c49be2da80e&ei=5070

Can you imagine what is going to happen when the interest rates start to rise in the near future?

2) in case anyone checked the stats, the economy was going down at the end of the Clinton administration.
That is absolutely false. Unemployment was 3.9% and there was actually a budgetary surplus. Clinton administration also produced net growth in jobs, something that is NOT happening under Bush.

Bush reacted to stop the slide, but then came 9-11, the CEO scandals, one-right-after the other. It created a slightly chaotic economic situation.
You forgot to add that Bush has added to this economic dilemna by picking a war with Iraq and spending hundreds of billions of dollars while the national debt was going through the roof. Plus of course the ill conceived "tax cuts".
Honourable men do not send men and women off to fight an immoral war.

Number of Iraqi civilians killed per year under Saddam's regime: >100,000
Number of Iraqi civilians killed per year after Saddam's regime: <50,000
Enough said.
Do you have a source for these figures and when was the latest round of any mass Iraqi deaths?
Honourable men do not pour hundreds of billions of dollars to fight an enemy that is no threat to them, while the poverty level increases in their own country.

If 9-11 had been prevented, we never would have found out what they planned and, provided their attack plan were declassified (unlikely), Bush's opponents would simply say it was scare tactics to boost his popularity and get the Patriot act passed. A very similar situation exists with Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Try Links to saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and the mastermind Bin Laden. Unless of course you have proof that even George W. doesn't have?
Honourable men do the noble thing and admit their mistakes openly and seek solutions to prevent making the same mistake over and over.

Bush has made mistakes. I don't deny that. However, if Bush admits to them during an election year, let's just say it's political suicide. The Kerry campaign would hash and rehash it until November.
So it is better to be dishonourable and lie, or even worse, blame others? The world needs reliable politicians that tell the truth?
Honourable men seek peace not war.

I agree, but the war on terror was thrust upon us, not the other way around.
The attack on Iraq was NOT honourable. Afghanistan was.

Augustus wasn't that bad. At least, compared to 90% of the guys who came after him.

I highly recommend Suetonius' Twelve Caesars for an insight into precisely how civilised the Roman Empire was.

I hate Suetonius. So dry.

I was just saying that they killed Caesar because they feared he was becoming too much of a dictator, but all killing him did was usher in 500 years of dictatorship. Had he just died naturally, the people likely wouldn't have accepted his successor, and the Republic would probably have been restored.I never thought of Suetonius as dry--must be the translation. He was really far more of a gossip than a historian. Now Tacitus--there was a guy who was dry.

Bush is more of a Nero than a Caesar, he plays golf instead of reading PDBs regarding national security. Don't let the mainstream media coddle you into being an ignorant flag waver. I read in the paper the other day an athlete who could have had a pro career playing football died in Iraq, fighting for Rich Cheney's oil. Where was bush when the country called on him? AWOL. Yeah, he can dress pretty in a flight suit, but a real pilot had to fly the plane. Clinton built the country to be a superpower, Bush has caused it's downfall. The young and innocent are dying for the old and greedy, and that to me is the most unnatural thing in the world.

Founder
TAJ

Bush is more of a Nero than a Caesar, he plays golf instead of reading PDBs regarding national security. Don't let the mainstream media coddle you into being an ignorant flag waver. I read in the paper the other day an athlete who could have had a pro career playing football died in Iraq, fighting for Rich Cheney's oil.

To be fair, the foorball player I believe you are referring to actually left his pro career after 9/11 to join the armed forces and was killed in action in Afghanistan, not Iraq. It's still a senseless war, though, but aren't they all?

Angry Junkies, do you think before you type?

Clinton built the country to be a superpower, Bush has caused it's downfall.
The USA has been one of however many superpowers since 1918, and for sure, 1945. Thats way before Clinton got into office. The people that build the US into being a superpower were the stretch of Presidents who really did nothing but let the country develop into a huge economic giant via unhindered capitalism. That stretches back to Ulysses S. Grant, maybe even before that. And to say that "Bush caused its downfall" is in the past tense, meaning it already happened. Which would make sense if America still wasn't the world's only superpower.

the thing you have to understand about shakespeare was he was a political hack who wrote to please to political view of the court of elizabeth the first. defending ceasatr and putting down brutus was popular amoungst people supporting the divine right of kings. just like the bard made joan of arc an evil witch, and macbeth a murderer, because those were polular positions for a loyal subject to take in the reign of good queen bess.

Yes, even more so of course with Richard 111.

Richard was certainly a schemer and an opportunist. He was most definitely not a hunchback, or crippled or deformed in any way. He was too well renowned as a warrior leader for that to be the case.

No, simply as the last monarch of the House of York, he had to be disparaged so as to please the current monarchy (Tudor) for whom Shakespeare was writing.

To this day, Richard 111 societies exist in a (very belated) attempt to "clear his name".

Honourable men do not deceive their fellow citizens.WMD may yet be found. For months, people were asking "where's Saddam?" but we got him. It's only a matter of time.

Funny how the whole WMD process went: “We have evidence, and we will show it to you” -> “we have evidence, but wont show it to you yet” -> “we have evidence” -> “we will find the evidence” -> “we don’t need evidence” -> "We could find evidence practically every day now" -> "If we don't find any evidence it must be because they destroyed it"

Honourable men do not deceive their fellow citizens.WMD may yet be found. For months, people were asking "where's Saddam?" but we got him. It's only a matter of time.

Funny how the whole WMD process went: “We have evidence, and we will show it to you” -> “we have evidence, but wont show it to you yet” -> “we have evidence” -> “we will find the evidence” -> “we don’t need evidence” -> "We could find evidence practically every day now" -> "If we don't find any evidence it must be because they destroyed it"
Oh what tangled webs they weave!!

Honourable men do not deceive their fellow citizens.WMD may yet be found. For months, people were asking "where's Saddam?" but we got him. It's only a matter of time.

Funny how the whole WMD process went: “We have evidence, and we will show it to you” -> “we have evidence, but wont show it to you yet” -> “we have evidence” -> “we will find the evidence” -> “we don’t need evidence” -> "We could find evidence practically every day now" -> "If we don't find any evidence it must be because they destroyed it"
You might want to talk to Kerry then. After all, even Kerry is in on the process (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0401/043004-wmd.htm). As for Iraq's connection to terrorism, check out this, from the Hudson Institute (http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf).

Honourable men do not deceive their fellow citizens.WMD may yet be found. For months, people were asking "where's Saddam?" but we got him. It's only a matter of time.

Funny how the whole WMD process went: “We have evidence, and we will show it to you” -> “we have evidence, but wont show it to you yet” -> “we have evidence” -> “we will find the evidence” -> “we don’t need evidence” -> "We could find evidence practically every day now" -> "If we don't find any evidence it must be because they destroyed it"
You might want to talk to Kerry then. After all, even Kerry is in on the process (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0401/043004-wmd.htm). As for Iraq's connection to terrorism, check out this, from the Hudson Institute (http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf).
Kerry is not exactly in on the process? Mens News Daily?

US team finds no Iraq WMD

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3157246.stm

Now even Bush admits WMD doubts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1135880,00.html

The pretence of the search for WMD in Iraq ended yesterday when the top American weapons inspector announced his resignation, saying there were no such weapons to be found.

The search for WMD in Iraq after the conquest was a hollow gesture designed to perpetuate the myth used to justify the war. Mr Kay's expertise was wasted on such a futile and fruitless exercise. Privately, he felt "disillusioned" with the whole project.

Dr Kay, unable to continue with the pretence about Iraqi WMD, admitted "I don’t think they existed". The US quickly replaced Kay with a retired UN weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, but even Mr Duelfer admits he doesn't expect to find any WMD.

http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=451

Regarding supposed links to Al-Queda, then why didn't the US attack Saudi Arabi instead of Iraq. 15 of 19 terrorists from Saudi Arabi took part in the attack on the WTC, supported by Al-Queda. Even cash came from the House of Saud to supply these terrorists (apparently by mistake?).

There are still NO proven links to Iraq and Al-Queda for the attack on the WTC. Terrorist exist worldwide, including Bin Laden who was trained by the US, to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Even some of the terrorists who flew into the WTC were trained in the USA. Failures by the CIA and FBI resulted in these terrorists NOT being apprehended.

This isn't exactly constructive, but amusing and it seems to be somewhat accurate. *chuckles*

http://www.angryflower.com/bombso.gif

This isn't exactly constructive, but amusing and it seems to be somewhat accurate. *chuckles*

http://www.angryflower.com/bombso.gif
More along the theme of the "honorable man"?

http://www.jackbishop.com/images/WMD.jpg

When was Julius Caeser leader of the Roman Empire?

From when he assumed the title of dictator in 48 BC up until his death in 44 BC. Just 'cause he never accepted the title of king doesn't mean he wasn't running the show.

thats true, he did pretty much run it all, and by the way, it wouldnt have been king, but emperor.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---