Calax

Slowly the freak out train be chuggin along, with me having to pack up and move at the end of the month. And technically I'll be "homeless" for about 6-10 hours (checkout is done from 7 am to 12 noon, and you don't get to check in until like 6ish pm).

I was referring to the ORIGINAL Ceasar. As to Egypt? If what you're looking at is true, for all we know bits of Syria and eastern Egypt will hug each other in a special way and have a new nation.

Actually, it was generals paying their own troops, and the aristocracy doing their best to remain separate from the mob that led to their fall. With Ceasar becoming a popular figure, and paying his own troops, he was untouchable unless he was separate from them.

I'd recommend the whole Ender and Shadow series as well, although the rest of the Ender books are very different in tone while the Shadow series are more in keeping with the feel of Ender's Game. I loved Ender's Game and the Xenocide series for their takes on aliens that are so different humanity struggles to communicate with them. Does the Shadows series keep on that? From what I read? No. The Shadow series is much more wiz bang actiony fun, mixed in with social messages in line with Card's personal views.

Another long day, with a few missing/lost passengers. Kinda annoying.

That's the thing though, Batman works in a "real" setting because it's at least theoretically plausible. Superman has to just grab the super powers and run with it, because he's an alien from another planet who can fly, breath ice, shoot heat from his eyes, see just about anything, hear just about anything, and has monumental levels of strength (to the point they invented "Tactile telekenisis" for him). I mean, Secret Identity is probably the blueprint for how something like this should have gone (up until the college years maybe) where the kid learns about his powers and slowly comes to grip with them, then starts learning the dark side to publicity, then tries to do all of his heroing without being seen etc. Instead we get a character who's built around (public conciousness wise) saving everyone, and doing the right thing, who doesn't really do either of those things. I'm not asking for a carbon copy of Christopher Reeve's superman, but the scene in Superman IV(?) where superman is screaming "THE PEOPLE! NOT THE PEOPLE!" is something that should be a core component of Superman's personality.

The fact that there is no evidence to even suggest that liberal groups were magically found and given different instructions on how to go about getting their exemptions.

When WoD is agreeing with me, I get scared.........

It's not even "get a call" everything is done online, so I've been checking the web every 45 minutes. BUt basically yeah, then at 930 I wash that vehicle, take it down to the airport, and have two customers. Silly part is I'm still earning more than I would have at McD's.

There you go. Actually, I was just closing the BBC news feed and I misread the headline "Rosbjerg wins dramatic British GP" :lol: Pfah F1, real men drive nascar! Or GoKarts. Today I'm semi "On call" for the better part of 9 hours. Technically I'd be at work for that time, but I don't have passengers so I'm just staying at home watching the scheduler for a passenger until 930 when I go in, wash a van and drive it.

He's saying that until he's proven different, he's going to operate on the assumption that Liberal organizations were given different hoops to jump through than those that have been discussed. Because, in his opinion, it's more logical to do that than to operate on the assumption that everyone was given the same forms and wordsearch was used.

Guaranteeing something that you can not actually guarantee is foolish, even if it does make for good rhetoric. The burden of proof should always be on the person who makes the claim*, as is the case with ravenshrike and his "guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them". If that statement was not intended to be a factual statement, that should be clarified. *Imagine what science would be like, if any yahoo could claim any outrageous thing without having to provide any evidence whatsoever. I'll agree that others should be able to prove it right or wrong, but the person who makes the claim should have more proof than "liberal orgs weren't bitching" to support their case. Except between human nature and the fact there is undisputable statistical evidence that Tea Party groups et al were targeted my guarantee that no liberal groups were targeted in the same way, while not rising to the equivalent of scientific Law, certainly clears the equivalent of Theory. Only if you're using theory like criminal theory, not scientific theory. And even then it wouldn't hold up in court.

I never claimed to be a lawyer, but I know well enough that Mirandization is creating informed consent by a person that they know and understand their rights as a interogatee (the UCMJ version is entirely written). This is done to conform with the Fifth and Sixth amendments like you said, but one thing you're refusing to consider (or somethign) is that she can answer whatever she wants however she wants, and she will have to face the consequences. But to blanket state that she HAS to answer any question relating to the rules and regs of the IRS and cannot refuse to answer is idiotic. People don't lose the "right to remain silent" as soon as they answer one of the questions. As to siezing her Emails etc? That's shakey. They'd need to have a warrant for it and propable cause, particularly given one of the main things she dealt with was peoples personal finances and SSN #'s, both of which are dangerous if "let out".

Awww, you didn't get the Astin Martin grille.

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly. *well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down. We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game. And we thought it was entirely external due to the media blitz pushing that connection and the politicization. A political witch hunt will net us nothing, and just because somebody doesn't have the Miranda rights read to them doesn't mean that those rights do not exist. If she feels that something she says could incriminate her, be it for this particular topic or one unrelated to these investigations, she will always have the right to not say anything. Oh this should be good. Since you seem to know so much about Miranda, please explain the SCOTUS' rationale for creating the Miranda right and how it differs from standard 5th amendment protections. Also, please explain why you think Miranda rights apply to Lerner. You're the one who started throwing around Miranda rights there skipper. And technically "Miranda Rights" is really just the official notification to the suspect (or interrogated) of what their rights are and aren't. In this case, she always has the right to remain silent, she always has the right to an attorney, and she always has the right to stop speaking until she speaks to an attorney. It's not some magical constitutional on-off switch where you have your rights as long as the government informs you of them.

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly. *well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down. We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game. And we thought it was entirely external due to the media blitz pushing that connection and the politicization. A political witch hunt will net us nothing, and just because somebody doesn't have the Miranda rights read to them doesn't mean that those rights do not exist. If she feels that something she says could incriminate her, be it for this particular topic or one unrelated to these investigations, she will always have the right to not say anything.

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly. *well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down. I'm for leaks, and against Prism. I can understand why prism exists and would be bothered by it, but it's digging through so much crap that I feel safe (of course if it ever bites me, I'd probably get more pissed). Doesn't mean it's right however. And the leaks, if you dig through my post history you'll see me defending these leaks and sites like wikileaks on the premise that if they didn't exist, the government wouldn't be a government of the people because the people wouldn't be able to make informed decisions about who's governing them. Not that they can anyway, but that's beside the point.

Everything I've seen involving Russians in the US media makes damn sure that the audience knows that the Russian population suffered. Although it isn't always clear that it's also their own government who hurts them. Me and Monte tried out the Theatre of War. Basically it's a scenario fight against the AI where you have to hold out against them for X amount of time. We almost beat it (we'd just started day 4 of 4), but I think I've figured out how to beat that particular one just via post action analysis.

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

You're Volo, Troll extraordinaire, why should I?

You make me giggle because of just how much you don't read.

That was kinda my initial point. I just tend to get carried away

That's the thing though, Batman works in a "real" setting because it's at least theoretically plausible. Superman has to just grab the super powers and run with it, because he's an alien from another planet who can fly, breath ice, shoot heat from his eyes, see just about anything, hear just about anything, and has monumental levels of strength (to the point they invented "Tactile telekenisis" for him). I mean, Secret Identity is probably the blueprint for how something like this should have gone (up until the college years maybe) where the kid learns about his powers and slowly comes to grip with them, then starts learning the dark side to publicity, then tries to do all of his heroing without being seen etc. Instead we get a character who's built around (public conciousness wise) saving everyone, and doing the right thing, who doesn't really do either of those things. I'm not asking for a carbon copy of Christopher Reeve's superman, but the scene in Superman IV(?) where superman is screaming "THE PEOPLE! NOT THE PEOPLE!" is something that should be a core component of Superman's personality.

You're right they shouldn't. But this film's general tone and characterization should be akin to other works on the same character. It should be bright and offering hope, not being used by it's director and producer to show just how destructive the character would actually be in a fistfight. I don't go read/see Superman to watch people get turned into a red mist by punches. Superman isn't "dark" and "Moody" and doesn't need to have the arch of "this is why he's a hero!" Superman is about technicolor awesome as he defends the earth and SPECIFICALLY goes out of his way to defend the city from damage in his fights. Hell, part of the justification for his death in 1994 was that he had to hold back otherwise people would die. He deliberately was taking fights to places where there weren't people because then they wouldn't get hurt. And the flashbacks here establish that sort of character but in the climax you never see him attempting to just flat out save anyone except for the other primary cast. And Volo, Educate yourself and read before making a post about somebody elses opinion. I specifically said this wasn't Superman AS A CHARACTER, it was him AS AN ARCHTYPE. And the character of the archtype who best fits this story would by Hyperion who sent a message to the US government by causing a massive 9.9 magnitude earthquake in antartica, by flying into the thing.