Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Your Childhood-present Heros

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In the Secret World of Arrietty
    Posts
    529

    Default Your Childhood-present Heros

    Everyone in their childhood had a hero.

    EVERYONE.

    Whether it be a soccer player, a politician, or even cartoon characters, we all had heroes.

    What were yours?

    And why?


    I had many childhood heroes and I still do:

    One of them are Winston Churchill, the leader who stood by the British in WWII, who inspired the British citizens, etc.

    I have many more, world leaders, holocaust survivors, and even Peter Pan.

    How about you?
    HCs-14

    "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless."

    -Adolf Hitler

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,610

    Default


    SpongeBob is a great role model

    As for sports I don't have one as I don't really like sports.

    As for politicians I like Ron Paul. He stands against the establishment and wants to follow the Constitution.
    Last edited by jorbaud; 01-26-2012 at 09:47 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eating a cat
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    My sisters doll collection

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    *insert humorous location here*
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrHyde View Post
    Everyone in their childhood had a hero.

    EVERYONE.
    I didn't......

    Thanks Morgan for the awesome signature and avatar!
    <15:28>[NoobTank]: i might not be here for all u know
    <15:29>[smoothme]: true u might b a figment of my constipation
    <15:30>[NoobTank]: dont u mean imagination lol
    <15:30>[smoothme]: oh yeah lol
    <15:30>[NoobTank]: not quite the same thing lol

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In the Secret World of Arrietty
    Posts
    529

    Default

    Lucas did ur sister have a Ken doll with the barbie?
    HCs-14

    "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless."

    -Adolf Hitler

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    thata way ====>
    Posts
    1,321

    Default


    because if they had light beer when he was playing... he might have even run with the ball
    Last edited by Balaam; 01-27-2012 at 06:05 AM. Reason: forgot to give the reason
    blessed are the geeks: for they shall inherit the earth


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    thata way ====>
    Posts
    1,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainRon View Post
    Everyone had a childhood hero???? i did not have any heroes at all, but i did hate alot of people.
    i feel a great void in the force
    spill brutha
    blessed are the geeks: for they shall inherit the earth


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eating a cat
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainRon View Post
    Everyone had a childhood hero???? i did not have any heroes at all, but i did hate alot of people.
    This has to be the best response yet. Did you sit in your room and plot their demise?

  9. #9

    Default

    Not childhood, but I do have a current list of historical figures. I have been inspired by over the years:


    Giovanni De'Medici

    Malcolm X

    Charlemagne

    Benjamin Franklin

    Julius Caesar

    Fidel Castro

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York, United States of America
    Posts
    758

    Default

    I am greatly attracted to the military exploits and political reforms of the Roman dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (138-78 BCE):



    In my mind, the disequilibrium, political agitation and social disorders of the Commonwealth arose due to the machinations of the two demagogues Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus in the period from 133-123 BCE. I am a vociferous opponent of ochlocracy and populism. In my divisions of the Commonwealth, I adhere to an outline that is derivative of the divisions that were propounded by the Roman moralist and historian Gaius Sallustius Crispus (The Jugurthine War, The Conspiracy of Lucius Sergius Catilina and The Histories) in which the period from 264-146 BCE was the moral apogee of the Roman Commonwealth as opposed to the inexorable subjugation of its foes that occurred during the final phase of the Commonwealth (133-31/27 BCE). For those who consider the composition or the structure of the Roman Commonwealth to be represented by a tripartite division, the aristocratic element that was embodied by the Senate was the core of the Commonwealth. According to Polybius of Megalopolis, the Commonwealth consisted of a tripartite division in which authority was symmetrically invested into the Monarchical, Aristocratic and Democratic elements. The mixed constitution or the conglomeration of political forms constituted the ideal form of government as expounded by Polybius of Megalopolis (The History of the Rise of the Roman Empire), Marcus Tullius Cicero (The Treatise on the Commonwealth), Titus Livy (Ab Urbe Condita) and Niccolo Machiavelli (The Discourses on the First Ten Books/First Decade of Titus Livy). The Senate or the patriciate was essential to the stability of the Commonwealth. However, with Rome's burgeoning Mediterranean empire, the extirpation of the foes that it encountered in the Iberian Peninsula (The autochthonous tribes of Iberia) and the subjugation of the vast Oriental despotisms, the triumph of the avaricious magistrates was assured which marked the degeneration of the aristocracy into an oligarchic regime. The defining feature of the aristocratic element is the desire for excellence and virtue while the defining feature of the oligarchic regime/oligarchy is kerdomeletia. The habits of the ingordigious oligarchs resulted in the enervation of the essence or the spirit of the aristocratic element. However, with the Gracchi brothers (133-123 BCE) the desire to elevate the democratic element at the expense of the monarchical and aristocratic elements resulted in the reign of the demagogues and threatened a descent into ochlocracy. The essential feature of the Commonwealth was the moderating medium of the Senate as opposed to the two remaining elements. The Roman Commonwealth was never identical to the despotic "polloi-archia" that had existed in the Athenian polis during its "aetataureate". The ochlocracy of the Athenian polis was characterized by the vituperation of demagogues who lacked the encompassing vision of the chief demagogue Pericles as well as by the unrestrained impulses of the Athenian populace. The Athenian denizens yielded to their primitive appetites and the polis degenerated into licentiousness. Without the moderation and restraint of an aristocracy or the political sagacity and superior intellects of lofty individuals, the polis was perpetually locked in a condition of fissiparous politics: the interminable struggles between the oligarchic and democratic regimes of the polis. In the final phase of the Roman Commonwealth (133 BCE), the state alternated between phases of kleptocracy (Avaricious leaders and demagogues would seek to ascend to power at the expense of other individuals and groups) and ochlocracy (The canaille desired to accumulate wealth at the expense of the affluent classes. The impecunious sought to satisfy their desires in a frenzy of wrath, desperation and lawlessness).

    I attribute the avaricious appetites of the oligarchs and the unpalatable populism/brutal demagoguery of the Gracchi brothers and other populists to have resulted in Rome's inexorable descent into despotism. It is melancholy to consider the historical fact that the supercilious Roman populace and their pugnacious Commonwealth experienced the alternating phases of kleptocracy and ochlocracy. The cause of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (138-78 BCE) was just as the strengthening of the patriciate would restore the Commonwealth to the period that had existed before the arrival of the Gracchi brothers (133 BCE). However, the victory of Sulla Felix proved to be appalling as his proscription list resulted in the public auctioning of the properties of his inveterate foes as well as the slaughter of all those who opposed the Sullan regime and the supremacy of the Senate. Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix triumphed over the forces of King Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysius of Pontus at the battles of Chaeronea (86 BCE) and Orchomenus (85 BCE) and managed to successfully wrest control of Rome from the partisans of Gaius Marius. At the approach of the Sullan regime (82-79 BCE), Rome was plagued by interminable social disorder and political upheaval. It was a just cause to support the patriciate as opposed to supporting the vulgar and licentious rabble and the proponents of ochlocracy. The support of the patriciate was a noble enterprise; however, the attempts to restore the Commonwealth to the Middle division (264-133 BCE) were essentially ineffectual. The burgeoning Mediterranean dominion of the Romans required the consolidation of authority into the aristocratic element or the Senate. Sulla attempted to undermine the authority of the popular assemblies and sought to uphold the supremacy of the patriciate. However, the Senate had undergone ossification or had descended into a rigid political conventionality/stagnation while the demagogues and other populists sought to acquire power and influence within the Commonwealth. In addition, the Senate became susceptible to the pestilential pride of competent military figures. In my mind, processes of social and political ossification or periods of stagnation result in the collapse of the particular polity. Political transformations and social frictions are necessary for the perpetuation of the state. The dissensions that plagued the Commonwealth were its essential or defining feature. However, the dissensions of the state were guided by the benevolence and moderation of the Conscript Fathers (Aristocratic element: Senate). The absence of the Senate's restraining influence allowed for the loss of moral restraint and the inexorable descent into the despotism of the Caesars. With an avaricious and ossified Senate, the supremacy of individual will over the collective will of the Commonwealth, the loss of the benevolence, moral/political restraint and political sagacity of the Senate, and the approach of ochlocracy, the Commonwealth was unable to recover.

    I applaud the efforts of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix who defended the cause of the patriciate and who sought to limit the influence of the rabble, however, the Commonwealth would not recover from a military usurpation and the abrogation of normal, constitutional law. The usurpation of Sulla was an ineffectual attempt to defend the cause of the patriciate and the Commonwealth. Only through constitutional and restrained law, the symmetrical distribution of power as evident in the mixed constitution expounded by Polybius of Megalopolis, the establishment of a contesseration (A harmonious political union) and the supremacy of the Senate would allow for the continuation of the Commonwealth. However, the dissensions of the Commonwealth were its defining or essential features that allowed the state to subjugate the Mediterranean basin. The pugnacious Commonwealth was overwhelmed by its dissensions after Rome secured its Mediterranean empire. With an ossified state, the once vigorous Romans underwent enervation which resulted in the abrogation of the Commonwealth. The absence of its external foes due to its succession of military triumphs allowed for the rapid expansion of its internal dissensions, upheavals and disorders. A combination of uncontrolled or unrestrained dissensions, political ossification (Rigid conventionality/stagnation) and the supremacy of individual will over the collective efforts and labors of the Commonwealth resulted in Rome's descent into despotism. Rome had two possible options: (1) to eschew foreign conquests and to avoid subjugating the Mediterranean nations that were positioned beyond the Italian Peninsula (This would allow for the perpetuation of the Commonwealth as the unity and cohesion of the significantly smaller state would be maintained. In addition, the Romans would not hazard their state to capricious Fortune or to the dangers of foreign conquest), and (2) the rapid expansion of the Commonwealth due to its bellicose nature (As a consequence of its relentless conquests and succession of military triumphs, the burgeoning dominion of Rome would be unable to direct its inherent dissensions toward its foes. Instead, the state would be torn asunder by its fissiparous politics. Dissensions and social frictions are necessary in order to avoid political stagnation, however, the absence of the Senate's influence and the loss of restrained, constitutional law resulted in the abrogation of the Commonwealth). The collapse, dissolution, pessundation and toppling of political regimes is the only constant and ubiquitous occurrence in human society. Human existence is locked in a condition of perpetual strife and enmity and interminable social disorder.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •