Campy

As long as people feel that they are oppressed and lack the resources, be they political or military in nature, to fight their perceived oppressors, that's true.

Me too, but just in case, I'll PM you my phone number to pass on to her...

Like Ed?

So what are you saying? That the comment "most terrorists are Muslim" should have really said "most terrorists who've hijacked a plane within the United States and have flown them into buildings on or about September of 2001 are Muslims"? If that's what was meant, then I'd agree. But that's not what was said, and not being a mind-reader, I can only address what was said.

Oh hell no, I wouldn't say that! If the first web page I happened to pull up had Cromwell (to take you back a few hundred years) or Bloody Sunday on it, I would have used those. I was only proving a point that terrorism isn't exclusive to whack-job Muslims, whack-job Christians can be just as bad, regardless of denomination.

I responded to his question asking how many terrorist act have been committed by non-muslims. He didn't specify on American soil or in planes. Either way, point is that Muslims didn't "invent" terrorism, nor do they now or have they ever held a monopoly on terrorism. There are just as many whack-job fundamentalists from other religions, and by going overboard and standing in judgment of "everyday" Muslims, we give the whackos more fodder and ammunition for their recruiting efforts. That's all.

I'm afraid I don't know their names, but here are a few incidents from Ireland in the early 90's where terrorist acts were Green (Catholics) on Orange (Protestants): 1990: Car bombings kill 7 and injure 37 in Northern Ireland during the year. 1991: Victoria Station bombing kills one and injures 38. Two PIRA members are killed when their bomb detonates while being placed. 1992: February 28th, a bomb explodes at the London Bridge railway station, injuring 29. April 10, a large bomb is detonated in London, killing three and injuring 91. The Baltic Exchange, a freight futures and freight price exchange, is completely destroyed in the explosion. 8 builders on their way to work at a military base in Omagh are killed by a bomb. 1993: A bomb planted by the PIRA in Warrington kills two children. A truck bomb in London explodes killing two and causing almost half a billion dollars in damage. A bomb explodes prematurely in a fish and chips restaurant, killing the bomber and ten others, including two children. Boy, by looking at that, I'd say that Protestants should be very wary of all Catholics. I see anybody with Rosary beads on my plane and I'm gonna' watch them like a hawk!

The English crown had used bills of attainder as recently as the latter half of the nineteenth century as a convenient way to remove political foes from a position of power by killing them and/or removing their title and rank and/or seizing their property. Bills of attainder ensured that the crown's will would be done without the consent of either the courts or that pesky parliamentiary gang of thugs. This, obviously, stood in stark contrast to the ideals of a fledging nation with the desire to give its citizenry the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, I believe the critical issue on bills of attainder is not whether they were originally applied to civil or criminal cases (they were criminal originally, generally for high crimes such as acts of treason), but that they were deemed unconstitutional because it deprived citizens of "due process" and reduced, if not eliminated, the seperation of powers. I'm by no means an expert, just a history buff who's always (too?) willing to share info, thoughts, and ideas!

Lord knows I'm no attorney, but the case you cited says "a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." I'm not sure I understand where you see a difference between what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers and the US v Brown case. To me, they both seem to be saying that the legislature can not make judgments of guilt or innocence or right or wrong. They may make laws, but both seem to be in agreement that enforcement of the law should be beyond their reach.

Great idea! With the money we'll all save on buying cheaper vehicles made by scab labor, we'll all be able to afford reduced-price season tickets to watch scab hockey players! There is a certain synergy to that, isn't there?

While that may end up being accurate, isn't it a bit too early to leap to that conclusion?

I think you'll find the answers to your questions are contained in my post where I quoted (and even highlighted portions of) his post in an obviously failed effort to stem posts like yours...

It's kinda' like pro sports to me. Is labor being overly greedy, or is it not their fault since they just took what the dumbass owners offered?

Because he stated it was a rhetorical question - and now wants an answer? j/k.

Yup, what he said, without the "morons" part.

Congratulations and I'm glad to hear mama and TBA are doing well!

I'd beg to differ. Other members of the judiciary are the "check" via the appeals process. Ultimately, if a case ends up before the Supreme Court, the check there is that the Justices have all been approved by the legislative branch (Congress). Tube in or tube out, I don't know and frankly, I'm not sure I care. From what I understand of her condition (which admittedly isn't that much), I know if it were me, I'd rather be dead. But she's not me so I don't have a dog in that fight. Either way, federal intervention in this case is nothing more than political grandstanding. At its best, it may help them get re-elected. At its worst, it sets a very dangerous precedent for Congressional intrusion upon the private and personal affairs of the citizenry, and we all have a dog in that fight.

He's ranked 6th in the NFL among FG kickers who attempted at least 25 FGs with an 85.7% success rate, and he's automatic inside the 40 (over 91%). His KOs have good height and distance, which is a huge part of Bflo being amongst the league leaders in KO coverage. He had a decent season. I'm not sure why anyone would entertain the notion of replacing him, especially, as RRich pointed out, when we have much more pressing issues.

I hadn't noticed the above in my earlier response. You supporting legislative intervention is a perfect example of the hypocracy of modern conservatism. And for the record, I never once posted as to whether or not the tube should be removed. That's a matter for the family to decide, and in the event of disagreement, as is the case here, it's up to the courts to settle, not Congress.

A--> That makes it acceptable in what way? B--> Bush flew back to DC to sign the legislation. It should be vetoed, not signed, especially by him, who as gov in '99 signed legislation allowing the tube to be pulled if this was happening in Texas. So is it the flip or the flop we're discussing here? And believe you me, if a Dem-controlled Congress (I'm not a Dem) were to do this, I'd be just as critical. For me, it's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of constitutionality. C--> Not all Iraqis are harboring individuals that kill Americans, some of them were just innocent people killed in a shooting war. It happens in war, but it doesn't make it any less tragic, and they certainly don't have less of a claim to life than Schiavo does.

Oh, I know that feelin'!!!

???? Per Fezmid, CNN says that in 1998 he started dating a woman after his wife had been in a vegatiative state for 7 years. Wouldn't that make it 1991?

A---> Congress has stepped over the line, they are abusing their powers. I find that vile because I've read the Constitution. B---> You'd lose that bet in a heartbeat, it's not the legislative branch's role to intervene, it goes from judicial to executive. So no, I wouldn't ask Congress to intervene, that'd not only be stoopid, but it'd be unconstitutional for them act upon my request as well. C---> How hypocritical that the person who couldn't care less about innocent people (reference Iraq posts ad nauseum) is now the champion and defender of the same. Hmm... I wonder why that is... Maybe because the GOP says it's OK now? How boringly predictable.

Agreed. Another issue that is particularly disturbing to me is that Congress is now in the business of intervening on familial issues. IMO, it should be argued and settled in the courts. Congress' involvement is an abuse of their powers and unconstitutional. My political affilliation (or truth be told, lack thereof) notwithstanding, I find this entire thing vile and disgusting.

I agree with you on that, and my use of the words "grey area" probably should have been in quotes as I was being somewhat facetious. I guess the problem I have with conservatives that believe they "own" the principles of our founding fathers is evident in things like the definition of a lawful marriage. Generally speaking, conservatives (and by extension, Republicans) are of the opinion that prohibition of gay marriage should be legislated, including ammending the Constitution. Of course, the last time a conservative movment ammended the Constitution with a prohibition, it wasn't too succesful, but conservatives do have a track record of telling us how to live our lives. On the other side of the spectrum are liberals (and by extension, Democrats) who claim that a gay citizen's right to the pursuit of happiness and the benefits provided by lawful marriage are Consititutionally mandated and that the government has no business interfering in their private affairs. I'm not about to argue that either Dems or liberals are truer to the freedoms and rights championed by the founding fathers than conservatives and Republicans are. I will, however, always argue any statement that claims that our founding fathers' principles are representative of, and/or defined by, today's conservatives.