Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $31,010
Woo hoo!! And the first 35% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by patent

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • McCain-Palin 2008 (Official Website Is Now Up

    08/29/2008 8:30:20 AM PDT · 93 of 146
    patent to knak

    >>>>>I’m pumped up about this election now. I just wish Palin was the top of the ticket. Maybe in a few years, huh!

    Ditto, ditto, ditto.

  • Cartoons of a Racist Past Lurk on YouTube

    04/28/2008 12:57:36 PM PDT · 4 of 48
    patent to freerepublic_or_die

    So, we should worry about the forces of evil preventing you from watching racist cartoons? I’m thinking I may have better things to do today.

  • St. Rose Latin Mass: COPS CALLED, Parishioners Banned from Mass

    05/04/2006 9:03:45 PM PDT · 23 of 29
    patent to Dumb_Ox

    >>>>I suspect the idea is, if one lets one guy pass out information without permission, however justified his complaints, every person will have to be allowed to do so.

    I agree, which is why they pastor was correc to remove him. Just because he should try, does not mean they should let him.


  • St. Rose Latin Mass: COPS CALLED, Parishioners Banned from Mass

    05/02/2006 11:28:36 PM PDT · 16 of 29
    patent to Knock3Times
    Interesting thread. I think I take a somewhat different view than those expressed so far. I think he acted entirely correctly. He had a complaint, and he wants to organize the faithful to make a common cause to address his complaints. Under Canon law, he does have the right to do so, though of course, also under Canon law, the priest has the right to tell him to go away. And, given the letter, the priest was clearly correct to tell him to get off parish property.

    So, he did what he should have, and the priest did what he should have. Now, the parishioner should continue organizing as best he can, but from off the parish property.

    Some may protest that he should ask the priest before distributing literature on the parish grounds, but I know of no Church law to that effect, and the story does not tell us that the priest had issued some prior command to that effect, so I see no reason that the distribution of the literature was wrong. Maybe it contravenes the social mores of some, but that hardly makes it wrong.


  • An Unapproved Ordination Looms in China AsiaNews Sees Trouble Ahead

    04/29/2006 7:52:14 PM PDT · 11 of 11
    patent to NYer

    >>>>Not addressed in this article is precisely who would do the laying on of hands to ordain Fr. Ma, bishop. Any guesses?

    This wouldn't be the first CPA bishop. They have many bishops, some of which Rome recognizes and soem it doesn't.



    03/21/2006 6:41:32 PM PST · 25 of 29
    patent to SaintThomasMorePrayForUs

    >>> There are a number of valid reasons that the bishop may exercise his perogative. Unless the bishop is behaving in a manifestly immoral way, we must accept his decisions. Fr Altier, it seems, has.

    It strikes me that you do not see a difference between obedience and questioning. Yes, Fr. Altier must take down the website, etc., in obedience. I am not, by my criticism, disobeying the bishop in any way. Nothing I've said violates obedience or implies I do not accept the bishop's authority to do the wrong thing. That proper duty of obedience hardly immunizes the bishop from criticism. They are two different things. Here, the criticism is entirely appropriate, entirely accurate, and entirely within the rights of the faithful. All the "perhaps" in the world won't change that.



    03/21/2006 3:47:00 PM PST · 23 of 29
    patent to sitetest

    Feel free to grant the benefit of the doubt, but at times doing so is to ignore a bit of the reality. There is lots of history here, and this Bishop has a temper. The suggestion he is doing this silencing for the benefit of the priest is BS.

  • Some Latin set to return to Novus Ordo

    03/20/2006 9:46:25 PM PST · 13 of 107
    patent to Theophane

    I agree. I've heard exhortations like this before somewhere. Still holding my breath, sadly.


  • More parents showing up in children's job search

    03/20/2006 7:45:27 AM PST · 32 of 43
    patent to Don W

    >>>I'm gonna barf. The first time I got fired, my mother WAS the axeman! And I deserved it!

    The only time I was fired it was by my mom. I deserved it too. She rehired me when I calmed down and got my head straight.


  • More parents showing up in children's job search

    03/20/2006 7:44:21 AM PST · 31 of 43
    patent to Graybeard58

    Every position I have any part in hiring for requires the individual to be able to act independantly when I'm not watching. I couldn't hire someone who can't do an interview/hiring process on their own. Seeking advice from others is one thing, bringing them is another.



    03/03/2006 9:20:14 AM PST · 42 of 97
    patent to klossg

    >>>Does anyone know how Bishop Harry J. Flynn ranks on teaching the truth other than this? I heard that his or a diocese close to his requires NFP for Pre-Cana.

    He has a reputation as being relatively conservative, and if a recent homily at a funeral was any indication, he seems to be one. However, he has control issues. If a conservative disagrees with him on anything he goes nuts and attacks. Once he makes a decision, even a plainly bad one, he goes to irrational lengths to pretend it was the right one. The Rainbow Sash thing was an example. Arinze explicitly told him to stop. Most dissenters would come back and just ignore Arinze, but not Flynn. He doesn't want to be seen as a dissenter. So, he had to pretend that Arinze agreed with him, and stated as such publicly. Arinze had to issue a statement that made it clear Flynn lied. Very strange.

    I don't trust Flynn or his administration. He was supposedly considered for the Cardinal's post in Boston, and I remember having mixed feelings, half hoping he would be removed from Minneapolis/St. Paul (my diocese) and half fearing the damage he would to the Church in Boston.


  • Parishes Report Extraordinary Minister Shortage

    03/02/2006 1:41:34 PM PST · 17 of 33
    patent to franky

    >>>>“I can remember the days when we had more people up here with the priest than we had people in the pews,” Roarke said. “It looks like those days may be gone.”

    I went to a daily Mass once where this was almost true. There were over 12 people up there, it took them twice as long to serve each other and sort out the mess than it took to serve the remaining handfull in the pews. If we hadn't brought the kids that day the "E"EMs would have outnumbered us.

    IIRC, this was the day I decided I would never be an "E"EM


  • Watch This Man (a future papabile)

    02/20/2006 11:18:54 AM PST · 3 of 14
    patent to NYer

    That didn't take long.

  • More on Flavigny (Possible SSPX Reconciliation with Rome)

    01/31/2006 11:46:44 AM PST · 11 of 43
    patent to Theophane

    >>>>1) When we see epithets like "splinter-sect" and "renegade" we can very well wonder why the SSPX and its followers would want to return to full communion with such uncharitable, not to say hostile and judgmental people as Rocco and his ilk. Why, for that matter, would traditional Anglicans or others want to?

    I've met a number of SSPX folks for whom you could say the same, they were uncharitable, hostile, and plainly overly judgmental, yet I still want full communion with the society. In part because I've also met more than a number of people whom I considered very holy, and good friends. One cannot judge the fruits of a reunion by those who resist the reunion.


  • More on Flavigny (Possible SSPX Reconciliation with Rome)

    01/31/2006 10:14:22 AM PST · 3 of 43
    patent to NYer

    To any who want to come back, welcome back. That said, I'd be seriously surprised to see all four bishops return, given the rather strong comments of the one in the past. Even if he did return though, there are other "bishops" out there, and the traditionalist movements will continue. Too much pride and power for that not to be the case. The Church will welcome back any who want back, and we will be better off for it.


  • UF requirement for partner benefits: You must have sex

    01/23/2006 9:39:19 AM PST · 80 of 121
    patent to Millee
    but Behnke said she had concerns about whether the affidavit might lead to discrimination if it ended up in the wrong hands. Pledging an active homosexual relationship, as the affidavit requires for gay couples, could potentially bar an individual from participation in organizations like the Boy Scouts or the military, Behnke said.
    In otherwords, it will make it harder for us to lie. If we tell the truth here by stating we have relations, we can't lie as easily later to get access to those nice yummy boy scouts.

    Whatever happened to just telling the truth in all forums?


  • Vatican Storylines: Those Who Are Resisting Benedict XVI

    01/20/2006 7:50:04 PM PST · 93 of 118
    patent to narses

    >>>OK, when was the Tridentine Rite suppressed? By what decree?

    Narses, I have better things to do than argue SSPX fantasies again. There is one normative Rite for the western clergy. That is just how it is, and if you can't recognize that reality, like I said, its a waste of time to argue this with you. The Tridentine is valid, but its limited to the indult. The Novus Ordo is the normative Rite for the West. Sophistry hardly changes that.


  • Vatican Storylines: Those Who Are Resisting Benedict XVI

    01/20/2006 7:27:31 PM PST · 91 of 118
    patent to narses
    " You cannot deny the SSPX is using a different Mass Rite than the current normative Rite. "
    Sure I can. The Tridentine Rite was never suppressed, it WAS the 'normative' Mass and it sill is valid and legal for every priest in the Latin Rite.
    You have to be joking. While the Tridentine was once the norm, it is not currently the normative Rite. It just isn’t, and to deny that is to go beyond mere argumentation, it is to step into a fantasy land. Good luck narses, but if you can’t even admit what the current normative Rite of the Mass is, there is no point in discussion with you. It is absolutely pointless to respond to the remainder of your post. You are too far gone.


  • Vatican Storylines: Those Who Are Resisting Benedict XVI

    01/20/2006 2:24:17 PM PST · 82 of 118
    patent to bornacatholic


    OK, I read it. I'm not clear on what you are trying to convey with it. Which do you contend, that this article shows they are schimatic or heretical, and exactly what in the article do you think shows this? Because I see nothing new over what was in our article on this thread.


  • Vatican Storylines: Those Who Are Resisting Benedict XVI

    01/20/2006 12:34:18 PM PST · 73 of 118
    patent to bornacatholic


    I see the link is to the SSPX, and that made me realize my post wasn't clear. I was referring to the Neocatechumal Way, not the SSPX. I had understood you to refer to both as schismatic/heretical. I would agree that the official SSPX is schismatic, and some are heretical. I disagree about the NW, as I've yet to see proof they are either schismatic or heretical.


  • Vatican Storylines: Those Who Are Resisting Benedict XVI

    01/20/2006 10:44:10 AM PST · 63 of 118
    patent to trisham
    >>>>In my opinion, the situation described above is a schism. While Pope Benedict may be trying to work with them and bring them back into the fold, they are still currently in schism. If that's all it took to be in schism nearly all of us would be in schism at some level. There have been alot of unambiguous commands from the Pope's I've failed to live up to - I'm a proven repeated sinner.

    You provided a dictionary definition of schism. That's fine, but which part of it do you think they fail? The first "1 : DIVISION, SEPARATION; also : DISCORD, DISHARMONY" is one we nearly all meet at some point. Its also entirely too vague to actually be applied. The second, "2 a : formal division in or separation from a church or religious body b : the offense of promoting schism" is clearly not met here, as there is no formal seperation. The Pope clearly recognizes them as inside the Church. I don't know why you guys insist on throwing the schism word so recklessly when the Pope clearly disagrees. He defines the issue, not us.


  • Vatican Storylines: Those Who Are Resisting Benedict XVI

    01/20/2006 9:54:27 AM PST · 58 of 118
    patent to bornacatholic
    As seems to be my way, I appear to be getting hit from both sides on this thread.
    Not me. Pope Benedict said our Church would be much smaller in the future. Time for him to start swinging the scythe and start lopping off the heads of all of these schismatic heretics.
    Two things. First, there is a vast difference between expecting a smaller Church and hoping for a smaller Church. Your verbiage makes me think you lean farther to the latter than I would be comfortable with.

    Second, they are clearly not schismatic. The Pope's statements, if nothing else, cannot help but make that clear, and you have no business contending you can override his statements about them. He determines who is schismatic or not, and where he has ruled you cannot contradict, or you are guilty of the same thing you wish to accuse them of.

    So long as the Holy Father continues to work with them and recognize them, they are not schismatic.

    As to heresy, I'll look forward to your proof for that statement. Please prove the order is heretical.

    Honestly, as a faithful Catholic who has seen AmChurch run my Faith into the ground, I can tell you that much of the time I am frustrated and angry at the refusal of the Papacy to apply discipline that could (would?) put us back on the path to ecclesiastical sanity.
    Me too.


  • Vatican Storylines: Those Who Are Resisting Benedict XVI

    01/20/2006 9:53:37 AM PST · 57 of 118
    patent to narses
    "Seperate heirarchy, seperate catechism, seperate Mass, ..."
    True of the Neos, not true of the SSPX. The catechism? The same the Church used for centuries. The Mass? The same the Church used for centuries. The hierarchy? The same Rome gave them until 1988 and even then only in a state of necessity, not a total change of theology, liturgy, catechism and belief.
    You need to study the SSPX history a little more for some of these points, for others you are playing semantics.

    You cannot deny the SSPX is using a different Mass Rite than the current normative Rite. Your basis for your argument is that the Rite they use, which you must admit is different than the current normative one, is one that was used previously. The Neocatechumenal Way could try to make a similar argument, that their Rite harkens back to less formal days of the early Church. It's still a fact that the Neocatechumenal Way's Rite is different than the approved Rite, and its still a fact that the SSPX refuses to use the current normative Rite of the Mass.

    Re hierarchy: I assume you are willing to concede they have a separate hierarchy now, and that this has been true since 1988. However, the SSPX was setting themselves up outside the normal hierarchy long before the Consecrations. That is not always a problem, many orders have separate hierarchies. However, at times it can become a matter of grave concern when that separate hierarchy begins to move them away from the body of the Church. It appears to me this is happening with the Neocatechumenal Way, and it also appeared to me long ago that the SSPX began preparing its adherents for schism long before that schism occurred. You can differ with me on the last point, and it can't exactly be proven in a court of law. However, it is quite plain that both organizations have hierarchies separate from the ordinary hierarchy. Both can stand alone if they decide to.

    Re catechism, they may have used a traditional catechism, but again, it had to be specific ones (pre '62). Moreover, in their their teaching from it followed their own program. Ask someone who was SSPX at the time what the catechism teaching was like. Even today, a rejection of the post '62 catechisms is a part of SSPX doctrine.

    It has never been acceptable to justify disobedience by saying "the same as the Church used for centuries." The Orthdox could justify their split by saying their belief was what they'd used for centuries. The Old Catholics could justify their split by saying that their rejection of Papal infallibility was the same as their belief had been for centuries. Fact is, one cannot simply justify disobedience by pointing to something done for a long time. In general, the SSPX has much better arguments than this one.

    And regardless, the fact remains that IMHO the Neocatechumenal Way is currently very near the slippery slope that the SSPX fell off of.


  • Vatican Storylines: Those Who Are Resisting Benedict XVI

    01/19/2006 3:59:42 PM PST · 34 of 118
    patent to Pyro7480
    But instead of simply obeying, the Neocatechumenals disobeyed while asserting that they were perfectly obedient.
    They have all the trappings of a cult.
    This is really how the SSPX started out, disobeying while claiming obedience, and they still do it today. Seperate heirarchy, seperate catechism, seperate Mass, on and on and on. Different theologies, but otherwise very similar. I truly hope the result is different. We shall see.


  • Catholic group requests church where all Masses are in Latin

    01/18/2006 7:30:34 PM PST · 11 of 21
    patent to sandyeggo
    "That's somewhat of a hazy issue right now," said Sherman.
    The SSPX sacraments being a separate issue, there wouldn't be any problem with FSSP or ICK or indult sacraments, right? A universal indult would take care of any haziness I would think.
    Obviously the Sacraments are valid even if they are in the traditional Rites. This is true even for the SSPX, generally. The question is if they are licit, and if done with the approval of the heirarchy, they obviously are. Regardless, there are clearly no questions of validity at an Indult parish.

    The loon from the US Bishops conference is a complete idiot if he truly thinks that the validity of the Sacraments is in question. Think about it, what's necessary for a valid Baptism? It doesn't have to be in any Rite, nor does it require a priest. It only requires water and the very brief formula "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." For some reason I suspect that maybe the old Rite meets this formula.

    As to the Eucharist, given the grant of the indult and past usage for 500 years, I can't see how anyone could seriously contest validity. For marriage the priest is just a witness. Confession, again, for validity only requires a simple formula, one that is clearly met by the old Rites.

    So either the Bishop's conference guy is a complete idiot who failed his Baltimore catechism class (and would fail it again today), or perhaps he worries about if they are licit or not. Even that, though, hardly seems like a valid concern once the Bishop approves, and given the evidence that the Vatican approves of the FSSP and Campos.

    Bottom line: like nearly all other bureaucrats at the UCCSB, this one is probably another liberal dissenter who hates to see any more latin.


  • Internet trash talk results in lawsuit; Medina man sues over chatroom posts

    01/18/2006 8:33:26 AM PST · 41 of 46
    patent to BookaT
    Let me take a stab at where this is headed. This guy will be represented by a LAWYER. The other guys will be represeted by a LAWYER. There will be 1,000's of other cases like this with this new rule about anonomous postings offending people. Each case will require minimum of guessed it..LAWYERS. This will be a total drag on the court system and will make a lot of money last time...LAWYERS!
    So, if I understand your post correctly, you are suggesting that this goofball gets upset and sues, and its entirely the fault of the lawyers? Does the non-lawyer who decided to sue have anything to say about it, or is he a poor helpless victim of a lawyer. I suspect this is the case, the lawyer read about this guy being flamed in one of the chat rooms. The lawyer then decided there was a good lawsuit here, and went to the guy's house, tied him up, made him get upset about the postings, drug him down the courthouse -- and MADE him file a lawsuit! Dang lawyers, forcing all these poor non-lawyers to file these lawsuits!

    FWIW, if my understanding of the lawsuit is correct, he is alleging other actions besides a flame war. He is alleging that Marlowe traveled to Ohio from Alabama to file a change-of-address form for Gillespie to disrupt his mail service, took photos of his house for the purpose of publicly distributing them for harrassment purposes, etc. At some point, these internet spats can spill over into the real world.


  • Holy War: The Year the Muslims Took Rome

    01/05/2006 7:59:16 AM PST · 23 of 78
    patent to NYer
    That night, the basilica of St. Peter gleamed with breathtaking brilliance. A few years earlier, Leo III’s predecessor, pope Hadrian I, had covered the entire floor of the sanctuary with plates of silver; he had covered the walls with gold plates and enclosed it all with a balustrade of gold weighing 1,328 pounds. He had remade the sanctuary gates with silver, and had placed on the iconostasis six images also made of silver, representing Christ, Mary, the archangels Gabriel and Michael, and saints Andrew and John. Finally, in order to make this splendor visible to all, he had ordered the assembly of a candelabrum in the form of a huge cross, on which 1,365 candles burned.

    . . .

    What happened is that in 846 some Muslim Arabs arrived in a fleet at the mouth of the Tiber, made their way to Rome, sacked the city, and carried away from the basilica of St. Peter all of the gold and silver it contained.

    Frankly, with no disrespect meant to the Pope, any time you cover a Church with that much gold and silver the proper response is for someone to sack the Church and deflate your ego a bit. That much money on the floor is just asking for it. Make it beautiful and opulent, but its not a palace, it’s a Church. That much gold and silver, imho, moves beyond providing the proper respect to the Tabernacle, and begins to shift the focus to men and their wealth, detracting from the worship of God. The muslims probably did us a favor in sacking it.


  • Court of Appeals: Constitution "does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

    12/21/2005 11:05:03 PM PST · 116 of 332
    patent to AFA-Michigan


  • USCCB reviews Brokeback Mountain ["The universal themes of love and loss ring true. ..."]

    12/15/2005 8:31:39 AM PST · 62 of 148
    patent to Darkwolf377

    >>>>Your last line is already wrong, though. It's breaking records for per-screen ticket sales, and it was such a relatively low budget that it will probably make money. Women will see this; they don't need straight men to see it.

    Its only being shown on a handful of screens in the most gay activist communities. Of course its "per screen" sales are high. Try to show it somewhere outside the homosexual community and see how it does. Despite all the advertising and publicity, it will tank.


  • Vatican document stirs (catholic) priest to step aside

    11/29/2005 7:32:22 AM PST · 26 of 66
    patent to livius

    >>>>Sigh. Years of really lousy catechesis, I suppose, combined with years of pro-gay propaganda.

    Of course, they were getting their catechesis from whom? The guy who just resigned because he disagrees with Church teaching.


  • Feast Most Foul - Thanksgiving dinners PETA would love.

    11/23/2005 12:05:35 PM PST · 17 of 71
    patent to wideawake

    >>>>What sort of weakminded idiots buy these kinds of books for their kids?

    I've probably got a few relatives on the list. We've gotten some strange books for the kids in the past.

    >>>>What normal dad could stomach reading such a book to a kid?

    We actually pre-read all children's books now. We got some that went beyond the silly stuff here, and were down right offensive (e.g., promoting pagan religions when the family is more than aware we are Christian). If it doesn't pass muster it disappears before present opening is even finished. I suspect my family has noticed this pre screening, as they were meant to. The books are getting less offensive every year, fortunately. One year one of the kids wanted one of the books read to her, and was dissappointed it couldn't be found. ;-)


  • Austria arrests Irving over Holocaust

    11/18/2005 11:03:21 AM PST · 54 of 59
    patent to R.W.Ratikal
    >>>Am I to understand that it's against the law in Austria to deny that the Holocaust happened? That's worse than the Holocaust.

    You are kidding right? Forbidding highly inflammatory speech on a topic is (in my view) a bad thing, but it hardly compares to brutally murdering 6 million people, and savagely treating countless more.

  • Pat Robertson has a message for Dover, PA: Don't ask God to help.

    11/11/2005 9:52:21 AM PST · 266 of 340
    patent to BeHoldAPaleHorse

    >>>>If I remember right, only Catholicism has a monastic tradition--Protestants eschew (gesundheit) monasticism as being pagan in origin.

    Its not just Catholics. The Protestants do "eschew" it, but I think Pat should start something new. Maybe just for him.


  • Pat Robertson has a message for Dover, PA: Don't ask God to help.

    11/11/2005 9:20:57 AM PST · 259 of 340
    patent to conserv13

    This is ridiculous. Robertson has jumped the shark, and should really consider the Monastic life at this point.


  • Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]

    10/28/2005 8:14:13 PM PDT · 120 of 124
    patent to cynwoody

    >>>>an acquittal or conviction for murder will bar any prosecution for manslaughter if based on the same facts (lesser included example)

    That would be true if she had only been tried for murder the first time, and had been aquitted of all charges. What you guys fail to understand is that the first trial is technically not a full aquittal, due to the other charges that had a hung jury.


  • Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]

    10/28/2005 2:28:08 PM PDT · 111 of 124
    patent to djf

    >>>>So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a trial by the country,” [*9] but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own --- by their own judgments of their rightful liberties --- but by a standard dictated to them by the government.

    Where have you been? This is our system. The legislature passes the law. The legislature is the one that "dictates" the standards, what is and is not a crime. The Juries then apply that law to the facts, and come up with a decision.

    Its been that way for a long time now. Even an 8th grader knows this, as you say.

    >>>> And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people’s liberties.

    Subject to the constitution, yes.

    >>>>Spooner. Trial by Jury

    Yes, some people argue that the Jury can vote to nullify the law. That has nothing to do with what happened, as here the jury did no such thing. Could the jury have said we will find her innocent because she was tried once before? It could have tried, certianly, and then Spooner would be relevant. It didn't. I see why you are quitting the argument, you have nothing left.


  • Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]

    10/28/2005 2:09:16 PM PDT · 108 of 124
    patent to djf

    >>>>It's pretty obvious which side you're on, and the turning and twisting of the words is demeaning and debasing of the law.

    Oh? Which side am I on? If there is actual evidence this guy raped her daughter, which side would I vote on if I were on the jury? That I refuse to abandon basic legal principles to get a result I want hardly tells you which side I'm on.

    >>>An eighth grader could read it and come to the same conclusions most of the freepers on this thread did.

    The courts throughout the years have disagreed with you. 8th graders are hardly qualified to run the Supreme Court. If that's the level you place yourself at, that's your call.


  • Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]

    10/28/2005 1:53:23 PM PDT · 105 of 124
    patent to hopespringseternal

    patent said>>>>Double jeopardy only applies if there is an actual decision in the first trial.

    hopes said>>>There was, an acquital on first degree murder charges for the offense of killing him. Now they convicted her of voluntary manslaughter for the offense of killing him.

    It appears they charged her in volunatry manslaughter the first time too. It was just deadlocked.

    >>>Different charges, same offense. Shouldn't last 30 minutes in an appeals court.

    You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

    >>>>If they had convicted her on a charge regarding another offense, it would have been ok. As it is, this is as clear a case of double jeopardy as you will ever see.

    No. It isn't. Double jeopardy is a legal doctrine with a specific meaning. It means that she can't be tried twice on the same charge. So she can't be tried twice on the first degree murder charges she was aquitted of. She can, however, be tried on the charges were there was a deadlock.

    Otherwise criminal defendants would frequently get off on technicalities like the ones you propose. Frankly, that result would be anything but justice in most cases. Just because you don't like it here, don't think that there are caess that run the other way.


  • Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]

    10/28/2005 1:46:33 PM PDT · 103 of 124
    patent to GrandEagle

    >>>>In that trial last April, she was acquitted of first-degree murder. One crime, one death. The jury didn't say "I don't know".

    She was aquitted of one of the charges, not all of them. They said I don't know for the others. Its likely that all that they decided is that she didn't have premeditation.

    >>>The charges keep changing for the same crime.

    Not from what I see, they recharged with the same charges as last time except the one they lost on.


  • Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]

    10/28/2005 1:44:33 PM PDT · 102 of 124
    patent to djf

    >>>>She is entitled to know, in no uncertain terms, "THE NATURE AND THE CAUSE" of whatever sharge she is presented with.

    She did.

  • Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]

    10/28/2005 11:02:11 AM PDT · 59 of 124
    patent to netmilsmom

    >>>>He would be proud to go to jail for it too.

    I think the same. Hurt one of mine and I'll have no hesitation to do the time. A parent has to defend his children, its part of the job.


  • Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]

    10/28/2005 11:00:03 AM PDT · 54 of 124
    patent to GrandEagle; djf

    Guys, it isn't charging her with different crimes until one sticks. Its the same crime. The first jury came back and said "we dunno" if she is guilty or not. So, you have got to find a jury that can make a decision.

    You may not like it in this situation, that's fine. But it has long been the law, and its hardly unusual.


  • Pawlenty: Uphill climb for GOP (Minnesota's Governor Speaks Out About His Future)

    10/28/2005 10:43:00 AM PDT · 10 of 10
    patent to Brimack34

    >>>>Conservatives here are livid at Pawlenty. Just like the President he sold out on some issues to get along with the Liberal's. We all know it does not work. I for one want someone to run aginst him in the primaries. He himself split the party in Mn.

    Speak for yourself. If we have a primary battle we guarantee a Hatch govenorship. I wan't happy about the tax issue, but I'm hardly livid at Pawlenty.


  • Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]

    10/28/2005 10:21:31 AM PDT · 19 of 124
    patent to bk1000; Froufrou; Bloody Sam Roberts; GrandEagle

    >>>>How can she be tried a second time for the same offence? Isn't that double jeopardy?

    Double jeopardy only applies if there is an actual decision in the first trial. As the Jury deadlocked, there was no decision, and she can legally be retried.


  • Fred Barnes: Rebuilding (On the Miers Withdrawl and New Nominee)

    10/27/2005 11:50:25 AM PDT · 45 of 63
    patent to ConservativeDude

    >>>>This is all hypothetical, obviously, and I doubt if GWB will go there...but...that said, Abbott is a completely different caliber of nominee than whats her name. He is very qualified, very smart, very politically savvy, very telegenic. And he's never worked for Bush. So yeah he's a Texan, but it's not like he has tied his destiny to Bush. I think if the D's did the crony thing, it would fall flat.

    I don't know. I think it would carry some weight with the general public. Keep in mind the mentality of these folks. In some minds, all Texan's are a bit different than the rest of us and all of them know each other.

    Anyway, I don't think the whole Crony thing would be all that hard, there must have been some contacts they could exploit. Would it be powerful? No, but better than only having Roe v. Wade to fight on.


  • Fred Barnes: Rebuilding (On the Miers Withdrawl and New Nominee)

    10/27/2005 11:13:33 AM PDT · 38 of 63
    patent to Tall_Texan

    >>>>I'll once again make my darkhorse pitch for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. The left would look like the bullies they are trying to beat up a man in a wheelchair.

    Nothing against him, but I don't think the next nominee should be a Texan after this last Texan "crony" didn't make it. I think it makes it too easy for the dems to call him a crony again.


  • Sources: No Indictments Wednesday in CIA Leak Probe

    10/26/2005 2:46:54 PM PDT · 120 of 125
    patent to Red Badger

    >>>Wizard of Oz..........


  • Sources: No Indictments Wednesday in CIA Leak Probe

    10/26/2005 1:33:34 PM PDT · 115 of 125
    patent to Red Badger

    >>>Th news is There is no news?..........This is news?............

    The media is trying to force an indictment by talking about it as if it is a done deal. That's what all the noise is, they want to pressure Fitz into the indictment mode.


  • Giuliani Tops List of U.S. Presidential Hopefuls

    10/24/2005 2:34:29 PM PDT · 160 of 173
    patent to curtisgardner

    >>>So you and all the rest of the hard liners can abstain and Hillary's minions will get her elected while you sit around because the Republican candidate doesnt represent everything you stand for. There are more issues than abortion and gay marriage.

    There are very few, if any, issues where I agree with Rudy, actually. For many of us the only reason we are Republicans in the first place are issues like abortion and gay marriage. You forget that, you think that all social conservatives also agree with you on the other "republican" issues. They don't. For me, I also disagree with him on the right to keep and bear arms - where he is a clear anti, in addition to the other things you mentioned, and I hardly consider him a fiscal conservative, though he could at least pretend to run as such.


  • Giuliani Tops List of U.S. Presidential Hopefuls

    10/24/2005 2:30:35 PM PDT · 159 of 173
    patent to Extremely Extreme Extremist

    >>>>Rudy will repackage himself as a social and fiscal conservative and run for President. If asked why he suddenly became pro-life after years of being pro-abortion, he'll explain that as mayor of NYC, his views were more suited to the people he represented.

    I've seen guys do that before, and I won't vote for it. They never mean it, and they never back up the hot air with action after being elected. John Kerry putting on the hunting togs to shoot a goose comes to mind. Pure BS.