SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree of course, Turkey is the great outlier, isn't it? It's current leader is edging towards islamism and repression though.
If you see any Ataturks out there please let us know.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
If you see any Ataturks out there please let us know.
timschochet
Footballguy
What else do the Kennedys and Bushes have in common? Both dynasties began with Nazi sympathizers.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well now look at you...
Yeah Joe Kennedy, more than loathsome on several fronts.
I do think the Bushes go back further than Prescott Bush though. That is ooolllddd money, New England old money. - Supposedly the old man Bush was involved in a NY bank that held nazi money, the FDR administration looked at it and found no wrongdoing at a time when no one was brooking sympathy for the nazi agenda. Admittedly I haven't read that much up on it.
Joe Kennedy was so bad FDR had him blocked from all communications even though he was the UK ambassador.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Ummm, there are no Bushes or Clintons in those positions right now.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm excited that so many people are reading or listening to Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Because it was written in 1960, and by a journalist rather than a professional historian, it gets all kinds of criticism. But it is easily the most accessible book on the subject, despite it's length. (Far more accessible, for instance, than Ian Kershaw's Hitler, or Richard J. Evans three volume history.) It's a popular history, and I equate it to James McPhearson's Battle Cry of Freedom about our Civil War. But even that book, fine as it is, can get bogged down with figures and details. Shirer never does that. His book is divided into several sections:
1. Hitler's birth to the 1923 Putch. This is a fascinating, though quick study of Adolf Hitler's early years, how he formed his views, the collapse of Imperial Germany and the formation of Weimar.
2. The Ideas of the Nazi Party Before returning to the narrative, Shirer spends an interlude studying Mein Kampf and the roots of Nazi thinking. Several historical intellectuals are briefly examined, including Luther, Hegel, Nietzsche, and a couple of oddities (Gobineau and H.R. Chamberlain.) It should be no surprise that this chapter is the most heavily criticized of all by historians and cultural experts. Shirer takes a subject worthy of thousands of pages or more, and gives a 40 page summary, missing several important themes (among the most important, the significance of ancient Rome's failure to capture what is now Germany, and the historic roots of anti-Semitism. Still, for those who know little or nothing about this topic, it's a fine introduction.
3. 1925-1935- The rise of the Nazis to the Purge. As I mentioned earlier, this is the most complicated part of the book, as Shirer goes into intricate and often confusing detail about the machinations of the last days of Weimar, the Reichstag fire, the Enabling Act, the creation of dictatorship, and the purge of Ernst Roehm. Nonetheless, this is a must read for anyone who enjoys politics and it's a seminar on how tyranny can take hold.
4. Life in the Third Reich The second interlude from the narrative, in which Shirer describes the various ways the Nazis governed Germany. It's important to read, but in terms of entertainment probably the least or second least interesting part of the book. Whenever I re-read this I usually skim through this part.
5. The Road to War 1936-1939 The best of the book IMO. Somewhat similar to William Manchester's excellent The Last Lion: Alone or Shirer's Collapse of the Third Republic- you're basically reading the same narrative each time from a different point of view. Basically the progression is: Rhineland, Spain, Austria, Munich, Czechoslovakia, Hitler/Stalin pact, Poland. Hitler and Neville Chamberlain are the main players throughout, as we witness how the west made mistake after mistake ending in World War II.
6. World War II part 1- Poland to Stalingrad. Shirer's history here is somewhat limited, and told better elsewhere. The exception, IMO, is his fine discussion of Stalingrad from the point of view of the Nazi leadership.
7. Holocaust and New Order- This is the third interlude in the narrative and it's the most difficult part of the book to listen to or read. Better books have been written on these subjects. Shirer offers the bare facts, sickening as they are. Again, I tend to skim over this or simply skip it. For a first time read, it is an important look at one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by human beings.
8. World War II part 2- Stalingrad to the End. Excellent narrative. Shirer spends a great deal of time discussing the assassination attempt on Hitler, and that is really exciting (more so than the Tom Cruise movie!) Shirer also spends a lot of time in the bunker with Hitler, though much of his narrative here has been challenged by historians and is highly disputed. But it still makes for an enjoyable read.
1. Hitler's birth to the 1923 Putch. This is a fascinating, though quick study of Adolf Hitler's early years, how he formed his views, the collapse of Imperial Germany and the formation of Weimar.
2. The Ideas of the Nazi Party Before returning to the narrative, Shirer spends an interlude studying Mein Kampf and the roots of Nazi thinking. Several historical intellectuals are briefly examined, including Luther, Hegel, Nietzsche, and a couple of oddities (Gobineau and H.R. Chamberlain.) It should be no surprise that this chapter is the most heavily criticized of all by historians and cultural experts. Shirer takes a subject worthy of thousands of pages or more, and gives a 40 page summary, missing several important themes (among the most important, the significance of ancient Rome's failure to capture what is now Germany, and the historic roots of anti-Semitism. Still, for those who know little or nothing about this topic, it's a fine introduction.
3. 1925-1935- The rise of the Nazis to the Purge. As I mentioned earlier, this is the most complicated part of the book, as Shirer goes into intricate and often confusing detail about the machinations of the last days of Weimar, the Reichstag fire, the Enabling Act, the creation of dictatorship, and the purge of Ernst Roehm. Nonetheless, this is a must read for anyone who enjoys politics and it's a seminar on how tyranny can take hold.
4. Life in the Third Reich The second interlude from the narrative, in which Shirer describes the various ways the Nazis governed Germany. It's important to read, but in terms of entertainment probably the least or second least interesting part of the book. Whenever I re-read this I usually skim through this part.
5. The Road to War 1936-1939 The best of the book IMO. Somewhat similar to William Manchester's excellent The Last Lion: Alone or Shirer's Collapse of the Third Republic- you're basically reading the same narrative each time from a different point of view. Basically the progression is: Rhineland, Spain, Austria, Munich, Czechoslovakia, Hitler/Stalin pact, Poland. Hitler and Neville Chamberlain are the main players throughout, as we witness how the west made mistake after mistake ending in World War II.
6. World War II part 1- Poland to Stalingrad. Shirer's history here is somewhat limited, and told better elsewhere. The exception, IMO, is his fine discussion of Stalingrad from the point of view of the Nazi leadership.
7. Holocaust and New Order- This is the third interlude in the narrative and it's the most difficult part of the book to listen to or read. Better books have been written on these subjects. Shirer offers the bare facts, sickening as they are. Again, I tend to skim over this or simply skip it. For a first time read, it is an important look at one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by human beings.
8. World War II part 2- Stalingrad to the End. Excellent narrative. Shirer spends a great deal of time discussing the assassination attempt on Hitler, and that is really exciting (more so than the Tom Cruise movie!) Shirer also spends a lot of time in the bunker with Hitler, though much of his narrative here has been challenged by historians and is highly disputed. But it still makes for an enjoyable read.
timschochet
Footballguy
Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
OK, I have a lot of questions and comments for the experts:
1. I don't understand what the first sentence is about. Can somebody explain it?
2. It seems like the writers anticipated Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus since there was a rebellion. But what's to stop a President from just saying there is a rebellion? Or couldn't an event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 be interpreted as an "invasion", and therefore allow Habeas Corpus to be suspended? And if it IS suspended, who decides that? The President? Or Congress?
3. And regarding the above and a bill of attainder, what exactly are we doing with prisoners in Guantanamo?
4. When it says no tax on articles "exported from any state" does that mean exported to other states? Or to other nations? If it's the latter, wouldn't that make any kind of tariff unconstitutional?
5. But in point of fact there ARE preferences between different ports aren't there? Don't states get to choose what the fees and taxes are? Or is that, according to this, unconstitutional?
6. The last two make sense. But if I understand the last one correctly, no American can be knighted by the Queen of England without the consent of Congress? Has this rule ever been violated or subject to controversy? (What about, for instance, Grace Kelly? Did she need to get the consent of Congress before she became a princess?)
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
OK, I have a lot of questions and comments for the experts:
1. I don't understand what the first sentence is about. Can somebody explain it?
2. It seems like the writers anticipated Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus since there was a rebellion. But what's to stop a President from just saying there is a rebellion? Or couldn't an event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 be interpreted as an "invasion", and therefore allow Habeas Corpus to be suspended? And if it IS suspended, who decides that? The President? Or Congress?
3. And regarding the above and a bill of attainder, what exactly are we doing with prisoners in Guantanamo?
4. When it says no tax on articles "exported from any state" does that mean exported to other states? Or to other nations? If it's the latter, wouldn't that make any kind of tariff unconstitutional?
5. But in point of fact there ARE preferences between different ports aren't there? Don't states get to choose what the fees and taxes are? Or is that, according to this, unconstitutional?
6. The last two make sense. But if I understand the last one correctly, no American can be knighted by the Queen of England without the consent of Congress? Has this rule ever been violated or subject to controversy? (What about, for instance, Grace Kelly? Did she need to get the consent of Congress before she became a princess?)
timschochet
Footballguy
The latest gun thread started by Tgunz has brought out all the same old rhetoric, which really comes down to "We have to do SOMETHING!" vs. "There is NO gun restriction that could possibly make the least amount of difference!"
In the middle of all that mess, however, Clifford posted a number of proposals, some of which make very good sense.
In the middle of all that mess, however, Clifford posted a number of proposals, some of which make very good sense.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Gosh you're right, she quit SOS to run for president, so we are looking at 42 consecutive years of Bushes and Clintons in the WH as President, VP or SOS, or running for president.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Top 10 Stephen King novels:
1. It
2. The Stand
3. Firestarter
4. The Dead Zone
5. The Shining
6. Cujo
7. Misery
8. Christine
9. Gerald's Game
10. Carrie
1. It
2. The Stand
3. Firestarter
4. The Dead Zone
5. The Shining
6. Cujo
7. Misery
8. Christine
9. Gerald's Game
10. Carrie
timschochet
Footballguy
Here is a list of Stephen King books I have not read. Please tell me if any of these are worthy of his earlier works, thx:
Dreamcatcher
Black House
From a Buick 8
The Colorado Kid
Lisey's Story
Duma Key
The Wind Through the Keyhole
Joyland
Mr. Mercedes
Revival
Dreamcatcher
Black House
From a Buick 8
The Colorado Kid
Lisey's Story
Duma Key
The Wind Through the Keyhole
Joyland
Mr. Mercedes
Revival
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
Have you read the Running Man? He penned it under the pseudonym Richard Bachman
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah, I've read all of those, thx. Running Man is the best of them, along with Thinner.
Dan Lambskin
Footballguy
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Here are the ones I've read, and the order I would rank them in:1. Dreamcatcher I meant "Insomnia"
2. Duma key
3. From a Buick 8
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm listing here the ones I haven't read. I've read every DT book except for Wind Through the Keyhole.
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks. Does Dreamcatcher measure up to the earlier works (or even Under the Dome?)
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Sorry, see my edit. I haven't read Dreamcatcher. Under the Dome was good though. Hated the TV rendition.
njherdfan
Footballguy
You can't really discuss constitutional law or interpretation without discussing the Necessary and Proper Clause or the commerce clause. They're both vital.
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
Hey Tim, not to interrupt whatever you guys have going in here, but just wanted to say your favorite TV shows thread inspired me to start watching The West Wing again. I had previously stopped somewhere near the beginning of season 3 sometime last year. Started again last week and glad I did. Thanks 
timschochet
Footballguy
Hey Tim, not to interrupt whatever you guys have going in here, but just wanted to say your favorite TV shows thread inspired me to start watching The West Wing again. I had previously stopped somewhere near the beginning of season 3 sometime last year. Started again last week and glad I did. Thanks
timschochet
Footballguy
Best Stephen King movies:
1. The Shawshank Redemption
2. Carrie (original)
3. Misery
4. The Shining
5. Stand By Me
6. There is no 6. All the others suck.
1. The Shawshank Redemption
2. Carrie (original)
3. Misery
4. The Shining
5. Stand By Me
6. There is no 6. All the others suck.
timschochet
Footballguy
Obama's very smart to propose free community college tuition right now. It's popular with the public, but it won't pass through Congress.
I predict the President is going to offer a series of proposals, all of which are popular with the public, none of which Congress will agree to. In the meantime he'll let the Congress attempt to lower taxes further on the upper 1-2%, and fight old battles on Obamacare. I don't know if McConnell and Boehner are a match for Obama when it comes to winning public opinion. I rather doubt it.
McConnell already made a fool of himself this morning by taking credit for the rising economy. According to Mitch, the public, confident of a Republican victory in November, started spending more in July and August- because they KNEW the Republicans would come in and lower taxes on the "job-givers." Yeah, OK.
I predict the President is going to offer a series of proposals, all of which are popular with the public, none of which Congress will agree to. In the meantime he'll let the Congress attempt to lower taxes further on the upper 1-2%, and fight old battles on Obamacare. I don't know if McConnell and Boehner are a match for Obama when it comes to winning public opinion. I rather doubt it.
McConnell already made a fool of himself this morning by taking credit for the rising economy. According to Mitch, the public, confident of a Republican victory in November, started spending more in July and August- because they KNEW the Republicans would come in and lower taxes on the "job-givers." Yeah, OK.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The reality is that our recovery is 3 years late. It should have happened sooner, faster, stronger.
Reginald Cornsilks
Footballguy
Mr. Mercedes was really good.
Not horror though. Quick page turner (also on Audible)
Not horror though. Quick page turner (also on Audible)
timschochet
Footballguy
VERY confident now I will win my bet with tommyboy, for a very simple reason- Senate Democrats have stated that they will filibuster any attempt to fully repeal Obamacare. Which means it will pass in the House but not in the Senate. For the bill to reach Obama, at least 6 Democratic Senators would have to go along with it, and they won't- they might agree to make changes but they're not going to vote for a repeal.
The other possibility is reconciliation, but I don't believe the GOP is really going to waste a reconciliation on a bill that they know Obama is going to veto. The House will repeal it, the Senate will filibuster, the GOP will blame the Dems and move on, and tommyboy will be sending me a check for $500. I think.
The other possibility is reconciliation, but I don't believe the GOP is really going to waste a reconciliation on a bill that they know Obama is going to veto. The House will repeal it, the Senate will filibuster, the GOP will blame the Dems and move on, and tommyboy will be sending me a check for $500. I think.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Didn't they change the filibuster rules?
timschochet
Footballguy
Maybe. I know the genesis of your argument; not sure I agree.
But it doesn't matter in regards to politics and you know it. The public doesn't care about yesterday. They will credit the President. If the economy continues to be robust, they may credit Republicans too. The public will credit whoever is in charge, without having the slightest idea what took place.
In my opinion: we avoided a new Great Depression through TARP and Obama's stimulus package. The stimulus could have been better (larger, with more money going to better places) but it worked anyhow. The credit goes to George W. Bush, President Obama, Democrats, and moderate Republicans. Conservative Republicans who voted against TARP, against the Stimulus, and who threatened not to raise the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011, which set things back further, deserve nothing but scorn and blame. That's how I see it.
timschochet
Footballguy
Not according to what I just read:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/08/house_passes_anti-obamacare_bill_.html
This article is from Real Clear Politics, discussing the latest House bill which lowers full time employment from 30 hours to 40 hours (for Obamacare):
But even with a GOP-led upper chamber, the fate of the legislation is uncertain. Republicans need support from six Democrats to overcome a filibuster.
On this particular vote, Republicans have 2 Democratic Senators so far willing to vote with them, so they need 4 more. But on a full repeal of Obamacare, I doubt they will have any.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Only for judicial nominations, not for legislation.There's nothing that prevents Republicans from getting rid of the filibuster for legislation too, but it doesn't seem like they're willing to go there right now.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Figured this was a good place to post this, vs. starting a new thread. Thoughts?
NBC omits "God" from Pledge of Allegiance... again
For those in an uproar over this, I would ask what you would think about someone reciting it as "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Or, "one nation, under Buddah"?
To which, you will undoubtedly respond, but wait, we're a Christian nation! Yes, Christians are the majority. So, would you be OK with "one nation, of mostly white people"? The issue I have is whatever you put in there is sure to alienate some segment of Americans, which is why I think it was a mistake to add the phrase "under God" to the original pledge in the first place. It's also un-Constitutional, IMO.
NBC omits "God" from Pledge of Allegiance... again
For those in an uproar over this, I would ask what you would think about someone reciting it as "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Or, "one nation, under Buddah"?
To which, you will undoubtedly respond, but wait, we're a Christian nation! Yes, Christians are the majority. So, would you be OK with "one nation, of mostly white people"? The issue I have is whatever you put in there is sure to alienate some segment of Americans, which is why I think it was a mistake to add the phrase "under God" to the original pledge in the first place. It's also un-Constitutional, IMO.
timschochet
Footballguy
I imagine we'll get to whether it's unconstituonal or not.
As to the rest, I agree with most of what you wrote, but like many other atheists, I've never seen the point of getting worked up about the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on coins. It doesn't affect my life, or anyone else's that I know of, in the least.
As to the rest, I agree with most of what you wrote, but like many other atheists, I've never seen the point of getting worked up about the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on coins. It doesn't affect my life, or anyone else's that I know of, in the least.
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks for the tip. His posts were a beacon of light amid a dreary flood of misinformation and Muslim bashing.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
1 - The 1808 clause was in direct reference to slavery. Congress would make no law stopping the importation of slaves into the country until 1808 (wasn't guaranteed they would make a law then either, they just had to wait until then to try).
2. - They didn't anticipate Lincoln's presidency any more than Washington's. Rebellion was a very real threat in a country that was created by..... rebellion. A President can't just say there is a rebellion without something to support it or it assumed that Congress will take any action to stop him, including impeachment, and the judiciary is sitting out there too ready to strike down any acts. Of course, their power is limited - Chief Justice Taney, ever the useless judge, found that out. 9/11 and Pearl Harbor could have very much been used to take these actions and in some respects were. As for who decides, the formula would likely be the President issuing an order either with the consent or anticipated consent and support of Congress.
3. - Prisoners in GITMO do not have constitutional protections if they have been determined to be illegal enemy combatants. If they are IEC's then they have no rights afforded under the Constitution that a citizen does. The check on the power to make that declaration and the exercise of that power is with the judiciary which has the necessary tribunals in place to handle it, or with the military depending on the nature of the capture and detention of the prisoner, and they have their system in place to handle that. The constitutional ideal is protected in these instances not by conferring rights to IEC's but in continuing to ensure that there is some process and check on the execution of the power. Basically, we don't care about them, we just want to make sure there is at least some kind of check on the executive. However, the habeas right is something that has been the greatest debate when it comes to enemy combantants because the system in place for IEC's still does require, at some "reasonable" point some form of judicial inquiry to ensure that there is some kind of basis for executive action. Many people debate where that review should occur and if during that review the accused has any rights.
4. - The Export Tax Clause was one of the many pandora's boxes that the framers had to deal with. The South was vehement that any export tax on their goods would be used as a policy hammer to force social change and allow the northern states to control the economies of the south through taxation. Until we codified the exact opposite wish with the 13th Amendment and the progency of laws that were born from that vomit stain on our history, the concern with many taxes especially export taxes were that the national government would create tax policy regionaly for the benefit of one against the other. If the national government could tax the export of all cotton, the south's economy would cease to exist. So this was a compromise. The specific exportation could not be taxed - the government would have to find other ways to raise tarrifs and taxes and they did. Until we decided that using the tax code to force social change and enforce policy was a better alternative to what the framer's thought.
5. - There are Supreme Court cases up to the late 90's on the Export Tax Clause if you are interested. Basically what is occurring now is within the confines of the system as defined by the Supreme Court. It gets to be a very technical aspect of tax law that my post would never do justice. For the purposes of this discussion, the important point to remember is that this clause was a concession and compromise to ensure the stability and protection of state economies.
6. - We have no formal nobility system and no active member of our government can accept a title of nobility from any other foreign nobel without the consent of Congress. Grace Kelly was an actress. She can do whatever she wants. If she was a Senator, Congress would have had to approve her title or she would have had to resign before taking it. Don't worry. If someone wants to give you a crown to an island somewhere you can take it and you won't have to call Ted Cruz and get all chumy with him.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Don't know if I can agree there. Salem's Lot was brilliant. And Cujo is top 2. Christine doesn't get the love it deserves because the movie wasn't that great, and no one gives him enough credit for the books under Bahman and the ones he shared with Straub. The Talisman might just be the most exciting and thrilling book that has his name on it. And the Long Walk in his Bachman series might just be his best writing from start to finish in any story he has done.
Harry Manback
Footballguy
No Mist?
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Dude...... Green Mile was a top level A movie; Creepshow was awesome in its campiness and still is one of the scary moments of my childhood that I remember and Maximum Overdrive is without question one of the best bad movies ever made - a true B movie classic; But personal opinions aside ----- Green Mile. C'mon.
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks Yankee. I'm especially relieved that I can still be a Prince. (I've always been one in my own mind.)
Regarding your response about enemy combatants: does it say somewhere in the Constitution that the various rights contained are restricted only to Americans and not to others that happen to be here for whatever reason? Or is that simply an assumption?
Regarding your response about enemy combatants: does it say somewhere in the Constitution that the various rights contained are restricted only to Americans and not to others that happen to be here for whatever reason? Or is that simply an assumption?
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
This isn't a case of people getting worked up about the references to the Christian God that are pervasive in our society, it's a case of people getting worked up when one of those references is removed. Sounds like you and I agree these references should not be there in the first place.
timschochet
Footballguy
Salem's Lot doesn'take the top 10 because all Vampire books, movies, and TV shows suck without exception. Don't get me wrong, this is the best of the bunch, but it's still vampires. There's a short path from Salem to Twilight and I don't want to walk it. (Beyond this, there are also some annoying problems with that book- the first 100 pages are incredibly dull, and later on he wastes way too much time with people denying vampires.) Speaking of boring, The Talisman is probably his dullest book, but I blame Straub. There are long stretches which are just unreadable. As for Long Walk, I like it, but never got the love. It would have been a great short story but the conceit is a little stretched for a novel.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well they weren't originally. Under God was added to the Pledge during the Cold War.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
We've debated the IEC thing here before at length and for years. Honestly, I'd rather just refer to that stuff for a really good explanation but I don't know if it still exists. And your specific question is the wrong question to ask anyway. IF someone is an illegal enemy combatant it doesn't matter where they are and there is some arguement that it doesn't matter if they are a citizen either (that's the hotter of the issues right now). If the executive makes the designation, and its subject to review and has been codified already by Congress, that's the end of it and the IEC designation is made and the system in place to deal with that - which is not the constitutional system of civilian justice - is the system used. IT is constitutional and no, IEC's have no Constitutional rights imbedded or implied in the Constitution.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I would slap you if I was in California. But this should surprise no one. Instead, I will drink my coffee.
timschochet
Footballguy
Green Mile tries REALLY HARD to be Shawshank. It's a poor imitation. Maximum Overdrive makes my all time worst movie list. I was rooting for the trucks. Creepshow was a great comic book but just weird as a film.
JZilla
Footballguy
Allah is just the Arabic word for God, so that wouldn't make any more sense than "one nation, under Dios"
timschochet
Footballguy
I do like the guy who played Percy Wetmore though. Always s fine actor.
timschochet
Footballguy
BTW, anybody see the new Carrie? I just watched it on Netflix a few weeks ago. The main problem with it is that Carrie is played by the same girl from "If I Live" or whatever that is, and she was also in the Scandinavian vampire flick. She's a good actress but she's hot. Carrie is not supposed to be hot dammit.
Also Julianne Moore is one of the great actresses of our time, but she plays the mom way too seriously and with none of the camp that Piper Laurie brought. That original De Palma film is so classic, with the perfect cast.
Also Julianne Moore is one of the great actresses of our time, but she plays the mom way too seriously and with none of the camp that Piper Laurie brought. That original De Palma film is so classic, with the perfect cast.
RBM
Footballguy
Similar threads
