KRC

According to Michael Schaivo: "But this is not about [the parents], it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..." - CNN, Larry King Show, 3/18/05 (Emphasis added by poster) So, the husband has said two different things. Which do we believe?

Home versus Houston.

You want to be part of the dark side. Admit it.

I tried to get you to vote for me. You refused to accept anyone other than Kerry. I had the same platform as Kerry, "I'm not Bush."

Maybe we can make Belgium a state.

Keep in mind that I am against increasing the size of the federal government. I want to cut a lot of these programs from the federal budget. This is where we seem to differ. Where we are the same is legislating morality. The federal government has no right to get involved in my personal beliefs.

I don't remember AD ever saying anything about 9/11 nor do I remember him ever referencing 9/11 in his discussions about terrorism and Iraq. Maybe the problem is with people like yourself, who insist on reading things into statements that do not exist. AD has been very consistent in his views. He was against the war back then, and he is against the war now. That has nothing to do with his beliefs on Iraq and terrorism. I am sorry that you are incapable of distinquishing the two.

Well, you seem to have moved a little more to the left since I last discussed this with you (prior to the last election). I do not agree with your statement, "a gov't that's too small is unable to provide us with the services we demand." While factually correct, I think that there will be a problem with decreasing the size of the government from its current levels (as aspoused in the statement prior to the quote), while still providing services that we demand. Hell, we are not even close to providing the services we demand now and it would require an increase in the federal government in order to do those. Just think of what we need to provide medicare, medicade, SS, healthcare, education, defense, counterterrorism, feeding the poor, curing diseases, etc. The government will be an even greater behemoth than it is now.

No. I know that you are a rightie who is not enamored with the current crop of Republicans. Pretty similar to myself, although I would never vote for John Kerry. Another difference is that you actually bring something to the table. I may not agree with it, but at least you are not a lemming who can only regurgitate things spoon-fed to them by the mainstream media. You are also actually willing to listen to the other side.

Such a simple concept, but yet so difficult for some.

It is unknown if VAKS is a racist group or a political group. They seem to be only attacking North Korean targets, so that would rule out racism. I am not sure about the oppression/threatened angle. Their attacks seem to be random, so it is tough to get a handle on why they do what they do.

Nope. That would be just as ridiculous as being wary of Arabs just because they are on a plane.

Not all terrorist organizations abide by that philosophy (whether recruiting people who feel oppressed or by using the ideal of oppression in their recruiting tactics). Some are based strictly on issues. Take an organization like Kenkoku Giyugun Chosen Seibatsutai. They hate North Koreans. It has nothing to do with the terrorists being oppressed (the group is based in Japan and members are not there because they were oppressed by the DPRK or by anyone else). They just hate the North Koreans and will attack anything related to North Korea. There are numerous other groups that have philosophies that do not exist or recruit based on oppression or similar situations. Even Islamic terrorist organizations are not always recruiting based on oppression. Granted, there are still a lot of oppressed people joining because of their oppression, but not all.

You need to understand terrorism and counterterrorism techniques before you can address the "was is it wrong to be weary of Arab people on a plane" statement.

Well, for me to be President for 30 years, I would have to eliminate a few laws. There is no way to measure. It is impossible to stop all terrorist attacks as Oklahoma City pointed out. He allegedly had ties to a terrorist organization and it is possible that he did the attack with the blessing of the organization but that evidence is circumstantial at best. Most of the evidence is that he took it upon himself to execute the attack for the benefit of the organization. Terrorism will always exist. There are ways to try to minimize the likelihood of an attack, but attack will still continue to happen. There is no question that we will see another 9/11 type attack. I do not see if from airplanes, but from other methods. A CBRNE (I do not like to use the term WMD because there are too many definitions of the term and it will cloud the issue) attack will happen and I am guessing that it will be a soft target. I do not see a copy of 9/11 happening again. That is why I am having trouble with this debate. You cannot limit yourself to strictly airline hijackings for your terrorist attacks. You need to look at terrorism as a whole, in order to properly debate the topic.

I would say no, because it wasn't a terrorist attack.

When you make a statement like "In the past 30 years, besides Tim McVeigh, name the other non-Muslim terrorists," you need to realize that people are going to address the question you asked. If you wanted, as Campy pointed out, "terrorist attacks by non-muslims by flying airplanes into the WTC" then you should have said that. You mentioned McVeigh who did not use an airplane in his attack. If you wanted to relegate to airplanes, why did you use McVeigh in your argument?

The only one attacking airports and airlines was BP, in which all of their attacks were directed in that fashion. Terrorism Database If we are only going to limit this discussion to hijacking of airplanes, they we are perpetuating the reason why the attacks happened in the first place: "There is no way that anyone could hijack an airplane and use it as a weapon to bring the WTC to the ground." Also, by focusing on only religious-based reasons for terrorism, we are doing the same thing. As the data shows, there have been numerous terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 1968, and this does not include non-organizational terrorist attacks (Oklahoma City, Atlanta, etc).

You picked 30 years, but my data is from 1968 to the present. These are all attacks on U.S. soil: ALF: 14 FALN: 4 Army of God: 1 BP: 5 BRAT: 5 CSA: Technically 0 but it is alledged that McVeigh was part of this organization and his attack was in retaliation for rulings against CSA member(s). CFF: 7 ELF: 50 MIRA: 6 Total terrorist incidents since 1968: 92

Are you only referring to attacks on US soil, or any terrorist attack in general?

I see your point to some extent regarding Madison and US v Brown, but it still seems like Madison applies more to civil liberties for personal decisions, while US v Brown and Rehnquist apply more to criminal proceedings. If I interpret your post correctly, it seems like you feel that all POV listed apply to trials via legislature, regardless of the content of the case. I still see a distinction, but I could probably be persuaded to see all three in the same light. I am just not there yet.

More like xenophobic than ethnocentric.

Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” According to William Rehnquist, “A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.” In U.S. v. Brown, the ruling was as follows: "The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." (U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965)). Now, people are making the case that the Schaivo Legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President is unconstitutional based on this clause. I am still struggling with whether this clause pertains specifically to criminal acts, which should be relegated to the judiciary, or whether it is applied to ALL legislation directed at a specific person. James Madison stated the following, "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." (Federalist Number 44, 1788). Madison's statement seems to imply that it applies to ALL legislation directed at a specific individual, while Rehnquist and the Brown decision point to "trial and punishment by legislature." Are there any lawyers here who can accurately address this? Which is it?

Congrats!! Glad to hear mom and baby are doing well.

...or it could be a husband hiding what truly happened to her for fear of going to jail. There is no way for either of us to say which is correct, which is why you need an investigation. You can't get evidence if the husband refuses the collection of said evidence. All I am saying is investigate the claims. It is irresponsible to not have an investigation. You cannot gather evidence if you do not investigate. The reason why there is no evidence is because nothing was done to collect the evidence.