http://www.thecinemasource.com/moviesdb/images/ThomasJaneMain-300.jpg

Unfortunately, he's already the Punisher. Which itself I think is a thinly veiled ripoff of Mack Bolan.

Cheers
-David

p.s. Opening a pub on Sunday?! If no pubs, then where do you go after church?

Before or after the Revolution? 'D

Ohhh, crap!! I would be Public Enemy #1 then!!! :D

Michale.....

Mostly, I just have a great memory for trivia. Also, I grew up near the National Road so knew the story from schooldays. Had to look up a few facts, though, and found that Madison quote.

Actually, there was a law (this came up during HCR debate) in the founding fathers' day which said male citizens had to have a musket and shot and powder, so they'd be useful in the militias. If you didn't have it, you were fined. And in New England, the "blue laws" were out of control -- you could be fined for not going to church, or for opening a pub on Sunday, as well as for whole host of other things.

-CW

Well, if we're talking the past, there is no question.

Chuck Norris... :D With Bruce Willis a close second...

These days?? Hmmmmmmm

As far as visually goes, Pete (Eddie McClintock) from WAREHOUSE 13 is how I visualize Mack Bolan would look...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Rubinek_and_Eddie_McClintock_cropped.jpg
The guy on the right.

As far as mannerisms and attitude goes, Michael Weston (Jeffrey Donovan) from Burn Notice

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles2/1436250/article_images/burnnoticelogousa772052.jpg

Seriously. I think I have all the original Don Pendleton ones (up through the 40s anyways) and most of the early Phoenix Forces.

Keep hoping for a movie but apparently there's some issues over who owns the rights.

Now here's a question. Who do you think could play Mack Bolan in a movie?

My first thought was Stallone. I think he could have pulled it off if this was the 80s. Not sure who would be good now.

-David

Mack Bolan!?? Seriously!??? I love the books!! :D

You know what you're going to get w/ Mack Bolan.

Yea, nothing ambiguous or subtle about Mack Bolan.. :D

Michale.....

I was referring to post roads (post office roads), but I always learn something new and interesting from your post. Were you a big geek in school? LOL I smell bookworm.

Here's one thing I know for sure: The framers never intended for the government to have the authority to mandate the purchase of a private-sector product under threat of punishment. That flies directly in the face of the very reason they went to war.

Speaking of the infamous mandate, Obama's got his first defector: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/democrat-joins-house-gop-effort-repeal-health-care-law/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I think his books read like a manual for a 320 Thermal Imaging Weapons Site with Lenses and IL-ST D 1913 Rail Mount.

He's good at creating the illusion of military knowledge though. I just find it hard to get into military minutiae.

Ever read any John le Carre? The "Spy Who Came in from the Cold"? Great stuff.

Also have to admit that I've read more Mack Bolan books than I (or anyone else for that matter) probably should have.

Forging a trail of blood and bodies, the Executioner unleashes his own brand of hellfire to stop global traffickers from doing what they do best--selling death. Fully aware of the mounting odds on all fronts, Bolan is betting this mission on surviving. Again.

You know what you're going to get w/ Mack Bolan.

-David

Hawk, I always wondered why anyone would vote into the government folks whose sole established platform is anti-government.

It's not as contradictory as it may sound..

Have you read EXECUTIVE ORDERS yet??? :D

Michale.....

Hawk, I always wondered why anyone would vote into the government folks whose sole established platform is anti-government.

Isn't it kind of like voting for a CEO whose stated platform is that he wants to destroy the company?

This just always struck me as odd.

Cheers
-David

If I remember correctly (from one of your own commentaries) the road system was initially designed to be used exclusively by the US military, to move weapons and supplies quickly and efficiently...

Another example of what the Federal Government SHOULD take care of... But does badly..

Michale.....

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you really need to use a better example in the future. The first big public works program the federal government ever undertook was in the early 1800s -- the "National Road" -- what is now US-40 and I-68 reaching west from Cumberland, Maryland.

It was contentious, for EXACTLY the reasons you are citing now in your example. Thomas Jefferson signed the first bill (1806) for the first section of road, which made it to the Ohio River (connecting the Potomac River traffic to what was "The West" at the time). A later (1817) bill to continue it were passed by Congress. James Madison vetoed it. Here's what he said about it at the time:

"I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses... to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution... I have no option but to withhold my signature from it."

The National Road was eventually built, most of it, but it was planned to go to St. Louis, and Congress ran out of funding so it ended in Vandalia, Illinois -- 60 miles shy of the Mississippi River.

Now, you can find all sorts of points to make in the story, but the fact remains that (1) this is not a new battle, and (2) it is a battle which the founding fathers themeselves violently disagreed upon. Some favored such "government overreach" some did not. We're still having the same battle today.

But using "building roads" as an example of what the Constitution allows isn't really the best idea. Because it was a VERY contentious issue whether this was true or not, even way back then.

I hasten to point out that the greatest presidential friend paved roads ever had in this country was a Republican -- Eisenhower -- who created the Interstate highways.

I'm not arguing your main point here, just saying you should look into the "National Road" (or "Cumberland Road") history a bit, or use another example, that's all.

-CW

I really enjoyed your comment.

But I think you leave out one very strong possibility..

Perhaps the majority of Americans are blaming the government because the government is actually doing things wrong??

Is that not possible?? Isn't it possible that the reason Congress only has a 20% approval rating is because Congress is doing a crappy job??

If the majority of Americans feel the government is wrong, what would any logical or rational person deduce??

Michale.....

Nobody on the Right has any problem with the government doing what it's actually supposed to do (like build roads), as outlined in the enumerated powers that We, the People ordained in the Constitution. The problem is when the federal government exceeds its constitutional authority, such as what's happened, big time, in the case of the infamous "mandate" (and other instances too numerous to mention). Our forefathers didn't go to war with England so that future generations could be dictated to by another King George, only in the form of a federal overlord. Quite the opposite. The Constitution was written in the voice of the People, mandating what the federal government shall, and shall not, do.

No, that thought never occurs to the big 20% of liberals in this country. Not sure how many liberals Canada has, but it evidently never occurs to them, either.

And, as such, they are the inevitable inheritors of the GOP's campaign strategy for a couple of generations now: "RUNNING AGAINST WASHINGTON."
Nixon began it, Reagan polished it to a fine sheen,
in the 90's Gingrich used it to mangle & deride the Clinton era Administration (I remember seeing him muse about how we really should get rid of the Department of State, the Department of Health & Human Services, the Department of Education, the Securities Exchange Commission, etc. etc.. . . until all that was left were various collections of men in uniforms with guns).

It has been a shrewd, successful, and powerful strategy -- blame the government for everything wrong. But it runs out of highway after awhile, leaving us sitting in our car in a trackless desert somewhere (gotta find a better metaphor) . . . and eventually voters have begun to see the traditional GOP as part of the Washington Establishment, just another bunch of saboteurs interfering with the will of "The People."

And so the Party which has lived by blaming "Washington" for all our ills, has become the victims of their own strategy, having pushed it so far, they ran beyond their natural conservative base and are reaping what they sowed . . . "Run the Rascals Out" politicians who've been in Washington so long (remember how in the 90's they all promised to quit after one or two terms? Sure.) that they are now the targets of the same campaign in a "B movie" remake of their "traditional" strategies.

Dare I suggest, slyly, that it "serves them RIGHT"?

After 40 years of following U.S. politics, any reasonable person with an IQ above room temperature knows that the Republican Party only caters to the "what's in it for me" crowd and steadfastly refuses to plan for the future.

You are not describing just Republicans there. You are describing ALL politicians. :D

. As a denizen of a country that is deeply impacted when your land is under the influence of your crazies; I hope this split of the know-nothing populace allows the Democrats to keep marginally repairing the damage you've suffered under the previous reigns of idiots...and I definitely include St. Ronnie in that categeory. Sadly, I'm skeptical that the average American voter hasn't yet stopped swallowing the snake oil the Republicans keep pushing.

So, let me see if I have this straight. Anyone who doesn't believe as you do are "know nothings" and "idiots". Isn't it possible, even LIKELY, that the vast majority of Americans are right (no pun in intended :D) and YOU are wrong???

Isn't that even slightly possible???

And I apologize to everyone who's been voting sanely all their lives.

Voting solely based on Party, by definition, is not sane....

Liz,

It is also becoming clear that the GOP is on its way to political oblivion for some election cycles to come. They can spend their down time pondering why that had to happen.

Ya know... Ink has been saying that since 2006...

And yet.... Here we are... :D Democrats are going to lose the House and likely the Senate of the Party "on it's way to political oblivion"...

Funny how that is, eh? :D

Ink,

Do you know, Chris, that I actually mistook the title to refer to that scene in The Princess Bride when Miracle Max and his wife wave and call out: "G'bye, boys! Have fun storming the castle!"

And here you are, bringing movies into reality again, Ink...

You are coming along quite nicely.. :D

CW,

But I also knew I had never seen whatever movie it was. I considered googling it (or asking Michale, as we all know he can quote from pretty much any movie at the drop of a hat),

:D I do have a knack.. :D

Although, to be honest, I haven't even seen Princess Bride...

I know, I know.. I am culturally depraved.....er... I mean deprived.... :D

Getting serious for a moment, I don't think the Tea Party is going to have the effect ya'all are hoping for... Down here in Florida, GOP and Independents are going for Rubio and Crist and Meeks are splitting the Dem vote...

If that scenario plays elsewhere, Nov 2nd is going to be an even bigger massacre for Democrats than previously thought...

TP candidates are gonna gank some mooks..

(Ask the Mrs if the reference escapes ya.. :D)

When does the quatloo wagering open up?? :D

Michale.....

You know, when I was writing it, in the back of my mind I knew that there was a movie quote that said the same thing. I heard two friends of mine laughing about the line years ago after they had seen the movie. But I also knew I had never seen whatever movie it was. I considered googling it (or asking Michale, as we all know he can quote from pretty much any movie at the drop of a hat), but then I thought "I don't really know the context" so I left any reference to it out. Thanks for clearing it up for me, though, as I couldn't in a million years have come up with the title unassisted! From my friends' reaction, it sounded like a funny scene...

:-)

-CW

I'll check back there, from time to time, when the need arises ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do!

I think I've posted this link before, but if not, check it out. The writer is an 82 year old Texas grandmother; and she gives me hope that the majority of Americans have retained their intelligence.

http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/

Enjoy, I hope.

With 40 years of following US politics under your belt, you, my friend, are the undeniable premiere Canadian fan of this site ... by a Canadian country mile!

I'm feeling much better about things after last night's primaries. It's looking pretty good that the Democrats, despite their legions of fair-weather supporters, will retain control of both houses of Congress.

It is also becoming clear that the GOP is on its way to political oblivion for some election cycles to come. They can spend their down time pondering why that had to happen.