Now she's talking Russell Crowe

[Guest]

The people who told you that are WRONG. Archaeologists found the bones of Cleopatra's sister Arsinoe in Ephesus. She is mixed race. They even reconstructed a picture of her. She definitely had larger African type features. Cleopatra was dark Egyptian/part black just like the legend says. And based on the reconstruction of Arsinoe's face, I would say the legend is right that Cleo was uglier than a loon getting a glamor shot. The idea that Cleo was Greek-looking is bullshiit PR.

Use common sense. How can a family line be completely inbred for hundreds of years? Check out this guy, and that was after only 100 years of inbreeding:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... veals.html

I vaguely remember that unearthing and it wasn't definitive that was Cleopatra's sister. Regardless, even if she had a multi-racial sister, she wouldn't be in line for the throne. They take purity of blood as legitimacy as much as the preceding Egyptian pharaohs.

And it doesn't have to be absolute in-breeding. They could marry other royalties as Cleopatra sought to strengthen her . by allying with Caesar and later Anthony.

The Egyptian authority Dr. Zahi Hawass (sp?), the Egyptian antiquities director, has gone on record that Cleopatra was strictly Greek.

Anyway, I don't want to debate about it any further. It's been done. Think what you want.

Arsinoe was a full-blooded sister.

The exact family tree of the Ptolemies is highly speculative, not a science, despite what anyone tells you. In several hundred years, there would be local blood in the line. Egypt was removed from the Greeks and Romans.

[Guest]

Arsinoe was a full-blooded sister.

The exact family tree of the Ptolemies is highly speculative, not a science, despite what anyone tells you. In several hundred years, there would be local blood in the line. Egypt was removed from the Greeks and Romans.

Not going to argue or debate. I did that when it was first broached. Not interested in changing your opinion. We can agree on that at least.

[Guest]

Arsinoe was a full-blooded sister.

The exact family tree of the Ptolemies is highly speculative, not a science, despite what anyone tells you. In several hundred years, there would be local blood in the line. Egypt was removed from the Greeks and Romans.

Not going to argue or debate. I did that when it was first broached. Not interested in changing your opinion. We can agree on that at least.

And I'm not interested in changing yours. I am posting for the benefit of others who read your claims.

I have noticed that many white people get upset over this subject. They feel it is part of a general black history campaign to make notable historical figures black. Well, you can relax. Cleopatra was a total loser. She did nothing of note. She completely destroyed everything - her entire siblingry, the Roman faction she allied with, the Ptolemy dynasty, and Egyptian civilization. She even got at least one of her own sons killed. She was a sociopathic bimbo who left nothing of worth behind. You need not be bothered that some Roman emp.erors chose to sleep with a mixed race gal.

[Guest]

Arsinoe was a full-blooded sister.

The exact family tree of the Ptolemies is highly speculative, not a science, despite what anyone tells you. In several hundred years, there would be local blood in the line. Egypt was removed from the Greeks and Romans.

Not going to argue or debate. I did that when it was first broached. Not interested in changing your opinion. We can agree on that at least.

And I'm not interested in changing yours. I am posting for the benefit of others who read your claims.

I have noticed that many white people get upset over this subject. They feel it is part of a general black history campaign to make notable historical figures black. Well, you can relax. Cleopatra was a total loser. She did nothing of note. She completely destroyed everything - her entire siblingry, the Roman faction she allied with, the Ptolemy dynasty, and Egyptian civilization. She even got at least one of her own sons killed. She was a sociopathic bimbo who left nothing of worth behind. You need not be bothered that some Roman emp.erors chose to sleep with a mixed race gal.

Hey, there are already about a hundred threads on this subject on this board. Can you please pull one of those up and not hijack this thread?

[Guest]

I have noticed that many white people get upset over this subject.

It's not that simple. To be sure, I'm not one of those people (not that you're saying so).

They feel it is part of a general black history campaign to make notable historical figures black. Well, you can relax. Cleopatra was a total loser. She did nothing of note. She completely destroyed everything - her entire siblingry, the Roman faction she allied with, the Ptolemy dynasty, and Egyptian civilization. She even got at least one of her own sons killed. She was a sociopathic bimbo who left nothing of worth behind. You need not be bothered that some Roman emp.erors chose to sleep with a mixed race gal.

I do agree that Cleopatra was far more romanticized than her true history. She basically w.hored herself out to any man that she thought could strengthen her em.pire (that word got banned) but actually chose the wrong man. It was Octavius she should had her sights on. But forget about her.

There was another older discussion where it diverted to Octavius' sister who really was more of a remarkable woman. She took in Cleopatra's children to raise as her own. That's a lot of grace to take on your husband's children from his mistress.

Anyhow, if anyone wants a fuller debate, just search for threads on Cleopatra. Everyone can decide for herself.

[JuJuBee]

Jolie is desperate and an embarrassment to herself. She crashes: Pedro A's interview, the IB premiere, other actors/actresses film premieres even shoving her away into pictures with the cast and her baby daddy's film set. Jolie has no dignity nor any boundaries.

I love the fax about the personal invitation. She is pathetic. Oh, and if there are any stories in the press about fights between her and her baby daddy, they will be faxed by Jolie herself. Pitt is probably hoping beyond hope that someone else will take her off his hands. Too bad for him she is tainted. Stuck wit dat ho for life!

Exactly! Boy, the loons really hate being reminded of this stuff, don't they? You can really tell when you've struck a loon nerve.
That Pedro A. clip was You are right that Pedro literally pushed her away from him. She was sooooooooo jacked up, she had what looked like white powder all down of her jacket, she broke off her own interview mid-sentence, interrupted his interview to beg him for a job, tried to "shake" on a deal, which he refused to do, and had to be pushed away back to her own interview.

Loons, be serious. If anyone other than the ho had done this, you be talking saying it had to be a combination of drugs and desperation. So, imagine this was, say, Ashley Judd. Seriously, you'd all be talking about what a whack job she was. Admit it!

Good point about the Ridley Scott connection, guest. But my question remains: what does Crowe want with her? Doubtful it's an invitation from serious actor to another -- I could see it if Crowe extended that invite to, say, Rachel Weistz. It'd be believable that he was inviting her to see him at work on his craft. But no one in the industry has ever even implied that the ho works on her craft. And I'm pretty sure Crowe is not interested in her romantically, so ... I agree that the ho just showed up. Just like she did at the Gran Torino premiere.

What a nutcase!

Baccala loves to ambush. If she can exploit her kids to do it, icing on the cake. She counts on other people being too civilized or polite to slam the door in her face. Russell Crowe already had Meg Ryan, he doesn't need another dessicated, skinny, past-her-prime-looks actress getting pushy with him. She's after something, and she thinks he can help her get it.

[Versailles]

I thought she was best friends with Gwen Stefani? Or was it just a one day stand?

[Guest]

Arsinoe was a full-blooded sister.

The exact family tree of the Ptolemies is highly speculative, not a science, despite what anyone tells you. In several hundred years, there would be local blood in the line. Egypt was removed from the Greeks and Romans.

Not going to argue or debate. I did that when it was first broached. Not interested in changing your opinion. We can agree on that at least.

And I'm not interested in changing yours. I am posting for the benefit of others who read your claims.

I have noticed that many white people get upset over this subject. They feel it is part of a general black history campaign to make notable historical figures black. Well, you can relax. Cleopatra was a total loser. She did nothing of note. She completely destroyed everything - her entire siblingry, the Roman faction she allied with, the Ptolemy dynasty, and Egyptian civilization. She even got at least one of her own sons killed. She was a sociopathic bimbo who left nothing of worth behind. You need not be bothered that some Roman emp.erors chose to sleep with a mixed race gal.

And I have noticed many blacks get upset over this subject. I don't know how much you know about Egyptians but if you called them "black" they would be highly insulted. They do not consider themselves black at all and they do not look like black people. I could care less what she was - not impressed with a woman who used her sexuality for political gain.

[she the lurker....]

Arsinoe was a full-blooded sister.

The exact family tree of the Ptolemies is highly speculative, not a science, despite what anyone tells you. In several hundred years, there would be local blood in the line. Egypt was removed from the Greeks and Romans.

Not going to argue or debate. I did that when it was first broached. Not interested in changing your opinion. We can agree on that at least.

And I'm not interested in changing yours. I am posting for the benefit of others who read your claims.

I have noticed that many white people get upset over this subject. They feel it is part of a general black history campaign to make notable historical figures black. Well, you can relax. Cleopatra was a total loser. She did nothing of note. She completely destroyed everything - her entire siblingry, the Roman faction she allied with, the Ptolemy dynasty, and Egyptian civilization. She even got at least one of her own sons killed. She was a sociopathic bimbo who left nothing of worth behind. You need not be bothered that some Roman emp.erors chose to sleep with a mixed race gal.

And I have noticed many blacks get upset over this subject. I don't know how much you know about Egyptians but if you called them "black" they would be highly insulted. They do not consider themselves black at all and they do not look like black people. I could care less what she was - not impressed with a woman who used her sexuality for political gain.

i don't think it's fair to judge historic female figures on their "use of sexuality for political gain" because in those time, up until last century it was the only way females could reach anything at all. also one of the few ways of gaining additional power for one's imperium was to attract poweful kings/imperators, while these kings and imperators were also trying to interest the families of the female royals into marrying into their family. the other way was trade and war. the difference between other royal females and Cleopatra was, that she was so powerful that she could decide on her own whom she wanted, while most of the females in royal families were handled like a cattle.

imo it is great that there are powerful women in history, no matter how they reached their power, because by powerful males in history nobody judges them on how they reached their power, especially not if he bought a daughter of an ally.

[Guest]

i don't think it's fair to judge historic female figures on their "use of sexuality for political gain" because in those time, up until last century it was the only way females could reach anything at all. also one of the few ways of gaining additional power for one's imperium was to attract poweful kings/imperators, while these kings and imperators were also trying to interest the families of the female royals into marrying into their family. the other way was trade and war. the difference between other royal females and Cleopatra was, that she was so powerful that she could decide on her own whom she wanted, while most of the females in royal families were handled like a cattle.

imo it is great that there are powerful women in history, no matter how they reached their power, because by powerful males in history nobody judges them on how they reached their power, especially not if he bought a daughter of an ally.

You have a point that women of those historic times were usually not seen in positions of power but Egyptian history was somewhat different. Queen Hatshetsup (sp?) pretty much reigned over Egypt without a man, though she was co-regent with a very young male relative (forgot how she was related to him). She was speculated to have a secret romance with her architect/engineer. Of all that I know about her, she never murdered anyone to seal her power.

On the other hand, Cleopatra was ruthless in killing off any of her rivals, including her own brothers. To be sure, those kind of homicides were not unusual in royal families. But they weren't the norm either.

[Guest]

I have noticed that many white people get upset over this subject. They feel it is part of a general black history campaign to make notable historical figures black. Well, you can relax. Cleopatra was a total loser. She did nothing of note. She completely destroyed everything - her entire siblingry, the Roman faction she allied with, the Ptolemy dynasty, and Egyptian civilization. She even got at least one of her own sons killed. She was a sociopathic bimbo who left nothing of worth behind. You need not be bothered that some Roman emp.erors chose to sleep with a mixed race gal.

And I have noticed many blacks get upset over this subject. I don't know how much you know about Egyptians but if you called them "black" they would be highly insulted. They do not consider themselves black at all and they do not look like black people. I could care less what she was - not impressed with a woman who used her sexuality for political gain.

Nubians neighboring rivals were considered "Black Africans." And they at times did rule Egypt. The ancient Egyptians I think were closer to Arabs or the Semite peoples. Look at Ramses the Great's hooked nose and red hair (likely henna-tinted).

[Guest]

Egyptians are darker than other Arabs, likely because they were a lot closer to the African tribes that would invade north periodically. The difference used to be even more obvious in ancient times. I am sorry if Egyptians are offended by that but they shouldn't be. It's just the way things are.

As far as not judging past female monarchs and leaders negatively, there were many who were competent and were limited by an oppressive situation. That's not the case with Cleopatra. Her IQ was probably in the high imbecile range. She was a sociopath who had no talent or ability except to manipulate men with sex. Even in those days, cultures had standards, and she was looked down on and hated by virtually everyone in the em.pire.

[Guest]

Egyptians are darker than other Arabs, likely because they were a lot closer to the African tribes that would invade north periodically. The difference used to be even more obvious in ancient times. I am sorry if Egyptians are offended by that but they shouldn't be. It's just the way things are.

As far as not judging past female monarchs and leaders negatively, there were many who were competent and were limited by an oppressive situation. That's not the case with Cleopatra. Her IQ was probably in the high imbecile range. She was a sociopath who had no talent or ability except to manipulate men with sex. Even in those days, cultures had standards, and she was looked down on and hated by virtually everyone in the em.pire.

In ancient Egyptian culture, it's been pointed out that women had a lot of legal rights which would be shocking of their times. They had property rights. They were not the subordinates of even these days.