Posts by Charles Roberts33

Matthew Young35 said:Try scrubbing your scalp with some Clorox and shining a high-powered flashlight on it. That’s what the top experts recommend.

Don't forget the other fan favorite: just covering the cell with beard hair.😉

Kyle Campbell4 said:In certain respects, they were surprisingly liberal, which is truly baffling when you consider their typical nature. For instance, they maintained that faith was strictly a matter of individual choice, believing anyone should be free to worship whichever deity they preferred. Their only true animosity was reserved for Muslims and Jews; otherwise, they permitted total religious freedom. They were even open to adopting children from other backgrounds, likely because building a massive lineage was considered a vital component of one's social standing. Consequently, they kept many wives, each focused solely on producing heirs. It is quite bizarre to see how these modern-day Mongols have become so docile and peace-loving.

The wildest part is how Genghis Khan began presenting himself as a reincarnation of a 'Bodhisattva'—a spirit of compassion and mercy, and a protector of Buddhism—as he expanded his influence across Mongolia.

In Mongolia, there is a clear refusal to accept any notion that the guy was just some excessive bloodthirsty tyrant. The way they teach about him and everything he accomplished is fundamentally different from the rest of the world. They argue that much of his notorious reputation is actually due to propaganda from the defeated parties—of which there were plenty—who intentionally silenced or downplayed all the positive things he was also responsible for.

Speaking of brutality, I recently stumbled upon a few articles regarding the Zulu, a tribe from the region of modern-day Angola, which holds minimal historical significance but reached its peak between the 16th and 18th centuries. They were entirely dedicated to nothing but warfare, slave trading, and cannibalism ☕. Their initiation methods were brutal; one had to prove strength and worth through violence. Any newborn in the Quilombo area would essentially be demolished by ritual. Hereditary rights meant absolutely nothing, if they existed at all. According to contemporary accounts, their ranks were bolstered solely by recruiting adolescents stolen from defeated tribes ☕.
They didn't farm the land or raise livestock; they lived purely by raiding others. These lunatics would stay in one place only as long as it took to exhaust all available resources before moving on again.

brightpilot6 said:Perhaps we could attempt an ATD policy edition. We would select a quintet—a ruler, a general, a chaplain, a philosopher, and a warrior—to form a cohesive unit, if you will. ☕

Add a sixth person to that list—a patron saint, if you will. In theory, it’s a legendary idea. 🙏🙏

driftingraven27 said:I am ranking rulers alongside Vlad the Impaler. One might as well include Joseph Stalin, provided he’s credited with inventing Photoshop.

Of course, you have Vlad the Impaler, Michael the Brave, and Ivan the Terrible—the legendary trio of charismatic leaders who absolutely crushed the Ottomans.

Paul Sanders5 said:Did you actually shed a tear watching Gladiator?

I’d shed a tear if someone in Hollywood finally decided to make a film about what happened to Carthage after the Third Punic War, starring Sean Bean as
Hannibal ☕. He’s easily one of my top 15 historical figures.

Growing up, the senseless brutality of the Roman victors always rubbed me the wrong way. Once I learned the full saga, I developed a real aversion to their entire empire.

brightpilot6 said:I find myself wondering why Charles Roberts33 didn't opt for Gandhi. One could argue for Pasivnosca and a defensive posture leading to an ultimate victory against the white man, all while remaining hairless and surrounded by monkeys wherever one looks☕

Well, spiritual leaders don't count here; we're talking about people who held actual power in their hands. To the folks over at ZZ, have you all been sitting on your hands? 🤔

You guys are completely clueless 🤮

Just pathetic

Paul Sanders5 said:It’s long, absolutely, but somehow Europe always manages to pop up at the top. Look, Napoleon was going up against the top 5 nations in the world back then—technologically speaking, anyway. It’s like a Golden Boot; scoring a goal in the Premier League counts for two points, while a goal in Cyprus is worth like 0.1. Why even bring up Russia's conquests in Siberia? Sure, they have the quantity, but they just don't have the quality :Stico:

I’d also mention Suleiman the Magnificent—equally massive on both fronts.

Word. But the massive downside is how quickly he hit his peak, burned out just as fast, and ended up fading into obscurity—far from the spotlight where he belonged.
🤷

Noah Roberts46 said:Napoleon or Augustus.

The first one actually drove massive progress for society across basically every field imaginable.

Starting with the Roman Emperors, I have a real soft spot for those who managed to maintain order and restore even a flicker of the Empire's former glory while navigating chaotic, decadent eras surrounded by complete incompetents—think guys like Aurelian, or our own Valentine. 😉

But if we're talking absolute TOP1, for me, it’s Marcus Aurelius. Purely sentimental reasons.

Good recommendations. Check out GQ; it's some interesting reading.

Paul Sanders5 said:He basically swept through all of Europe. Even when other countries teamed up, they had the advantage in almost everything, but it didn't save them. Plus, look at how he reorganized the state—he started with France and then that whole system just spilled over into everywhere else.

Ace was obsessed with conquering stuff. He had these massive plans for restructuring the government—kind of hazy and vague if you ask me—but he wasn't even that worried about the details. His main headspace was just conquering the known world. If he’d actually made the call, he probably would've made it all the way to China. Maybe we wouldn't be dealing with all this chaos today.

It’s all standing still, but world history is a long game. 🤷

And it isn't just those most famous leagues that actually matter. ☕

steelharbor9 said:Nader Shah. 🙏 He’s just so powerful that people call him "Napoleon Persia," even though he was actually about a hundred years older than Napoleon himself. 🤣

Managing to hold onto that kind of dominance with such a rough crew from the Afsharid era... I mean, he's a total MVP, I guess! 🙏

If we're going to highlight rulers who were masters at squeezing every bit of potential out of meager resources, then honestly, very few can be mentioned in the same breath as Michael the Brave.
☕

Generally speaking, the Wallachian princes are criminally underrated, if you'll excuse my language. 😉

Carol Lewis said:But what kind of criteria are we using here? It's actually a pretty tough question to answer on the spot...

Trophies, influence, longevity, style, charisma—and, of course, personal bias. It’s the usual checklist whenever people start bickering over who truly belongs in the GOAT conversation. 🤷

Paul Sanders5 said:Man, that's a tough one. If you look at the whole package—military conquests, how they actually ruled, their overall legacy—there's really only one answer: Napoleon.

If we're strictly talking pure military genius, though? It's easy. Alexander the Great. Nobody even comes close to him.

Me? I've always had a soft spot for Isabella.😉

Why is he so incredibly certain about Napoleon? 🤔

What’s your take on the leadership styles of those ancient Persian rulers?

Since we’ve already started the flood of polls... which historical leader would you consider the GOAT? Who do you respect the most? 🤔

Personally, I find myself leaning toward Alexander II. 😉

William Gomez5 said:Honestly, only one guy has ever had a legendary name, and that’s Hidehar Miyahira

Man, it just sounds so smooth when you say it out loud🙏

He was always rocking those helmets that looked straight out of a Hannibal Lecter movie🙏

Susan Kim2 said:Prika, Fernando San Emeterio.

Ulises de la Cruz 😉

Tudume, any chance you could start a mukbang YouTube channel where you just film yourself eating gourmet lamb in Indianapolis 🙏? 🙏.

I’d definitely tune in for that, and I’m pretty sure I wouldn't be the only one watching. 😉

brightpilot6 said:👍

Is there truly any circumstance in this life that isn't addressed within the pages of these divinely inspired works?

What are your thoughts on the latest hit?

against everything they claim is false, we must answer with the strength of song 🤷

What do you think of the latest hit?

I haven't caught it on the radio yet.

urbanhawk17 said:Disgusting. Just disgusting.

comments 🙏:

hey you empty-headed people, while we were all comrades, the money at home was a million higher! just wait for Corona to settle down and the next million will come flying in! then we can really squeeze the guy at the local station!

it goes on and on.....

dammit, I used to have certain sites blocked in my browser, I'd have to figure out how to set that up again.

ruggedjackal46 said:I insist, along with a shorter movie clip ☕

Queen, what an epic monologue 🙏🙏🤣

I'm stepping in here because the person actually qualified to give movie recommendations seems to have gone MIA.

Calvary—highly recommended. 😉



Air Strike from 2004 is another solid pick if you're looking for quality.

urbanhawk17 said:The guy you quoted is easily one of the top 10 pieces of trash in the US. Total garbage. Disgusting.

I'm joking, 🤷but

I was actually being serious about the paramilitary group.

wiredrider9 said:And look at this—she’s actually expecting some kind of handout from the old regime during this whole crisis? What a joke. Total trash.

🤣🤣🤣

She's starting to show symptoms of a severe Vitamin K deficiency.

Noah Roberts46 said:If you ask me, the smartest move would have been to ignore them entirely and then later tell the press that we shouldn't be giving any oxygen to such a tiny fringe group. He should make it clear that his stance on the matter is obvious, but that the best way to handle it is total silence. Once that handful of losers fades out of the news cycle, they become irrelevant. If we don't give them a platform to wave their fascist nonsense around, they lose all their clout. The less attention they get, the less impact they actually have.

They label patriotism as fascism just to protect their communism.

Don't try to force us to renounce our paramilitary groups; you'll never succeed. 😉

Not my president 🤮🤮

Papi, you look tense 🤔

I can't let you bait me into an argument 😉

urbanhawk17 said:Look, Charles Roberts33, I honestly couldn't care less about the news story or whether that woman goes shopping on a Sunday or not.

It's just funny that she said that while standing in a checkout line.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It's just funny.

We don't need to overanalyze every bit of stupidity, if you catch my drift.

Anyway, I laughed, I shared it here, and that's the end of it. Even if it was staged, it’s still funny.

Yeah, it’s pretty ridiculous.

If that’s actually the case. ☕

If the media is manipulating information just to chase a few clicks, then things are getting a little unsettling. Well, maybe "unsettling" isn't quite the word. But it certainly isn't cool. 😉