Boehner is an idiot for doing this.

How'd you like Expendables?  I heard it was good.

It was entertaining and it lived up to its billing as a stereotypical 80's/90's action flick.  I couldn't begin to count the dead bodies or explosions in the film.  They might have set a new record LOL.  Stallone is showing his age a little, and I think he had the sense enough to realize he is a senior citizen now so he wisely used Jason Statham (sp?) for some of the better action scenes.  It won't win any oscars, but it's fun.  Robin Hood was better IMHO.

There were several hundred lazy students at the University of Central Florida. 🙂

Basically yes they were.  They still paid their tithes to the Church of England, but their religious views lost out once Cromwell's reign ended.  So the New World was offered as a place to practice as they wanted without them feeling the sting of censorship in England.  It was also a good way for England to remove "deviants" from its society in a more peaceful manner.  The Quakers were even more marginalized than the Puritans.  Pacifists were not much good for serving in the King's army or navy especially in an age of empire so when the Quakers signed up for the New World, it was a "good" thing in the eyes of the British government.

So how, exactly, did the Pilgrims differ from the Puritans?  And was "Pilgrim" the name that they adopted for their sect, or was it given to them by historians?  If they adopted it on their own, I'm guessing it was meant to describe their spiritual (not physical) journey, correct?

I'm not sure how the Pilgrim term came into being.  I will have to research that.  Maybe someone else knows?

I think he's legit.  But I am interested to know what specific topic in modern history we are to help with?

Donnie,I am surprised to hear you repeat the common myth that Hitler was elected.  He was not, he was appointed Chancellor by the German President Hindenburg and formed a minority government with his Nazi party being the largest.  Not once did the Nazi party ever outright win an election and they always had to form coalitions with other far right parties until the passage of the law recognizing the Fuehrer Prinzip.  As a matter of fact the Nazis never polled higher than 36% in any free election.  That Hitler was popularly elected is a widespread myth and also one that is hard to get across to Americans most of whom only dimly understand parliamentary government in the first place.  Parliamentary democracies are very different from the federal type set-up in America.  BTW, many Europeans dont really understand American government either because it is so different from the usual European model.

I was totally unaware that Hitler was appointed.  I read up on this here.Still, Hitler worked his way up the system (albeit with his minions manipulating things secretively) and obtained power by the consent of the people (their consent was their passive acceptance).  As for De Gaul, he certainly was no Hitler, but he was on par with Franco in terms of dominating the government with his will.  Of course he used his war hero status to do it (no different than what Hitler did as he raised Germany up from the ashes of the Depression).

England's Parliament was formed from old English Commonwealth Law and a reaction to Cromwell's excesses.  France's Estates-General was formed based on social class distinctions.  France never had a document like the Magna Charta to base their civil government on.  France was never stable after the Revolution either like Britain.  France was way more radicalized politically which allowed Napoleon and Phillip III to bankrupt the country.  France has since then flirted with socialism and dictatorships (De Gaul), and gone through four or five constitutions...not to mention a collaborationist government that helped the Nazis.  It is a tradition for France to tear down its government and remake it every generation or so.  England, on the other hand, is loathe to make many changes to its governmental structure.  America, ironically, exhibits both traits of France and England (the good traits--stability and radical egalitarianism).  Perhaps this is why we have prospered so mightily in such a relatively short amount of time as far as nations go.

With all my respects, this is really biased.Phillip III (or the Bold) reigned from 1270 to 1285 ! France was already bankrupted during Louis XVI reign, that's the reason for the General Estates' calling.About De Gaulle, he didn't seize power but was elected, not really the definition of a dictator.About the collaborationist governement, Vichy ruled by Petain, half of France was under his control.And so on ...Humbly yours

1).  I mistyped Phillip III when I meant Louis Phillipe III my bad.2). Hitler was elected too but was he not a dictator?  Same with De Gaul and Franco for that matter.3). Petain only controlled what the Nazis allowed him to.Might I suggest looking up the phrase "Red and Black France."  This might help to explain where I'm coming from in regards to the constant governmental changes France underwent.

Most college History professors are liberal, and they just have to churn out polemics like this because they utterly detest any social movement that is ideologically conservative and grass roots driven since they are elitists by nature.