LeviF

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Boyhood comes highly recommended. Ethan Hawke was awesome.

Question for the group (especially those crying about the "rights" of foreign agitators): Do non-residents of the U.S. who are accused of crimes committed abroad have the right (under the Constitution) to due process or equal protection? If not, should they? When are they (or, should they be) conferred these rights? If they are conferred 14th Amendment rights, should they not be conferred 4th Amendment rights as well? 5th Amendment? 6th Amendment? Does it ever stop?

My vote is for Orton as well, Dante. I'll go with Ryan. It was where my gut was.

I'm not in the PPP league, so you can give me real advice

Askia the Great! That would be a bloody movie.

Sitting pretty after my first-round bye, my roster for this week is almost completely set. Just want some opinions on who to start at QB (arguably my weakest position). Standard scoring league. Tony Romo Matt Ryan Philip Rivers This time around against the Eagles, Romo will have normal rest and preparation routine. Weather in Philadelphia is supposed to be cold (mid-30s) but with clear skies at game time. But then there's the December curse. Matty Ice is in the Georgia dome this week against a middling Steelers D, and is coming off a 30+ point performance. Downside: he might be missing Julio Jones. Rivers is at home against a crappy Denver secondary. What say you?

Ancient Egyptians weren't black anyway.

I don't get it. What's her issue? PS The only celebrity I follow on twitter is 50. Dude is hilarious.

There's been talk for a while about putting an age limit on the service of federal court judges. New York has a system in place for our state court judges with mandatory retirement at age 70, with the ability to get three two-year "certifications" afterwards for a hard ceiling of 76. If I had to set the age, I'd put it at 75 instead of 80.

I assumed you were significantly older than me (15+ years) but maybe we are. Maybe I am wrong (hopefully I am). Torture is reprehensible, but I'm not going to claim that the US is above it. Regardless, more should have been done when we had the chance: forcing complete and total capitulation. No mercy, no conditions.

The tragic mistake is that we didn't cut this **** off at the root, and systematically destroy them as we did with enemies in the past. That's the one that MY generation will be paying for. The benefits of all this tolerance and play-nice politics are being reaped in places like the UK and Sweden. Anyone care to update us on how that's going?

See Tom's post. This country has chosen to be rather selective (no pun intended) with the rights, requirements, and privileges it bestows upon 18 year olds. The 26th amendment is a silly relic from the Nixon era when Vietnam hysteria was still rearing its ugly head.

Fair enough. I would, like you, say that gerrymandering is not good (though one could argue that it is checked by the representative process, since we elect those who do the deed). My question went more towards what sort of Constitutional amendment would you draft? What's the alternative? The algorithm idea is interesting, I'll have to look that up.

How do you propose eliminating gerrymandering?

I would add, and can't issue the same Executive Order twice in a given amount of time. Would you want term limits for Congressmen as well? Or would this alone satisfy you? This is a good idea.

The Log Jam is awesome.

!@#$, I hate Cheesecake Factory.

I know a guy who insists that voting should be restricted to net taxpayers, while net tax recipients can sit on the sidelines; impracticality be damned.

17th - The concerns that drove the struggle to free the Senate from the control of corrupt state legislatures pale in comparison to what we have today, with huge sums of money being openly given to Senate candidates (mostly incumbents) by lobbyists and activists. In this regard, the 17th Amendment is an abject failure. It can hardly be the case that the amendment strengthened the resistance of the Senate against the advances of special interests. Additionally, state legislators are (in theory) more beholden to the voice of their constituents than are Senators picked by direct election. 26th - Lifespans, educational years, and time spent dependent on parents' money have increased, and probably will continue to. Consequently, it makes little sense to allow 18 year olds to vote their immature and inexperienced consciences into law. I can get behind this.

Thing is, Columbia is one of the top 5 law schools in the nation. A lot of them will be making six figures a week after they graduate and already have those jobs lined up for them. Those who graduate without any Biglaw job lined up are !@#$ed. haha

The gas tax thread got me thinking: if you had a say in the matter (haha), what changes (amendments) would you want to make to the Constitution? I'm sure we've had topics like this before but I don't feel like necro-posting. Why is it important to make such amendments? Mine are more "out with the old" than "in with the new." -Repeal the 17th Amendment -Repeal the 26th Amendment (and the relevant portions of Public Law 91-285) -Institute a national referendum for big decisions involving war, immigration, and taxation The last one is tricky, and truthfully I wouldn't know how to begin implementing it (or what constitutes a "big decision), but in my perfect world this brings an end to our fearless leaders' utopian transnationalism and brings about the comeuppance that open-borders traitors so richly deserve (with apologies to our hardcore libertarian friends [haha not really]). Besides, it can't be any worse than a national election to choose a president who uses executive order like Slick Willy uses interns. Right? Right? Hey, a guy can dream.

Are you talking about food volume or calories? Because in your earlier post you said one can eat more calories on a good diet, implying that if it's "good" food it doesn't matter if you eat more than you burn.

They're "Cleveland 10's" to my friends and me.