Free Republic

What was the name of the company that operated the 50 seat aircraft? Delta mainline does not own a 50 seat aircraft.

There are so many statements in this article that are factual incorrect I thought it was satire. This article and the attitude it portrays are what low information people use to argue the outcome of the trial was unjust. I have read the newspapers and online articles to develop a timeline of actions and with this knowledge I find it hard to believe someone can write an article so void of the facts

thanks for the lesson.

The article does not make sense in regards to the 170000 earnings. Frist does not appear to have any other major assests to account for the earnings besides the 1 million dollars because he have to take out the loan to pay himself back. It sure reads as he was getting close to a 17 percent return. I would use that in answering Daschle, I would say that a young person now should stick with whatever the investment was that was drawing a secure 17 percent and she would be set for life long before she reached 82.

This comment about humans being not ready to learn for a period of time then moving into a time where more people are aware of what is happening around them sounds like the Celestine Prophecy.???? Copied concept?

I disagree. I think the Republicans tend to comply with the rules but the Libs do not. People state that when the situation reverses itself, and it will, and the Libs will be in the majority, it would be nice to have the filibuster available to stop a Lib nominee, but I say if it is wrong then do not use the filibuster no matter who has the majority. If it is suppose to just be a majority vote then it does not matter who is in charge, just vote. And secondly, in my opinion, if the Libs return to power they will get rid of the filibuster with no second thoughts if needed. For example, the Libs had no problem using the filibuster even though it was not used for judicial nominees in the past. What happened, FILIBUSTER IN FULL FORCE, with Libs out of power.

What about the lady's last comment, if it is illegal I won't do it. She was refering to her 15 year old child, wasn't she?

SEATTLE - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days," said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and that was the only way I could get information and keep track of her. I did it all the time."

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen, who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due to the mother's testimony.

The case started with a purse-snatching four years ago that shocked the island town of Friday Harbor, population 2,000. Two young men knocked down an elderly woman, breaking her glasses, and stole her purse. Christensen, then 17, was a suspect.

Sheriff Bill Cumming asked Dixon, whose daughter was friends with Christensen, to be alert for any possible evidence. When Christensen called the Dixon house later, Lacey Dixon, then 14, took the cordless phone into her bedroom and shut the door. The mother hit the "speakerphone" button and took notes on the conversation — in which Christensen said he knew where the purloined purse was.

The ruling will likely not result in parents being prosecuted for snooping, Cumming said. But it forbids courts and law enforcement from using the fruits of such snooping.

Federal wiretap law has been interpreted to allow parents to record their child's conversations. But Washington privacy law is stricter. Washington is one of 11 states that requires consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded.

"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote.

That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.

"I don't think the state should be in the position of encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites).

Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's whereabouts are unknown.

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said she'll stop that now.
"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.

I always like to read comments about absolute certainty using the words, overwhelming evidence especially from the CIA that organization of absolute knowledge. The words of "continue to believe" also exude confidence. This stuff about Tora Bora is all Monday morning quarterbacking. There is a ton of information that goes into making a decision concerning tactical and strategic decisions. I believe our military made the best decision with the info at their possession. If helicopters were flown in and people dropped off, since we are being hypothetical, let us say 1000's died because they did not know the location of caves entrances and were attacked from behind by Pakistan groups. Then that was a terrible decision. Our goal has been global terrorism and one man speaking truce from his hiding place is not the goal. Tora Bora was a tactical decision so it is made and we move on. By the way, what are the results of that decision, The Taliban is out of power, terrorists---reduced, training camps--gone, lost of life----reduced, Afganistan held free election ---priceless

I believe the MSM called the election for Gore first prior to the polls closing which caused the people in the panhandle to stop coming to the polls. The MSM then put it back to the "to close to call" column later and then into the Bush column. The early Kerry call had an impact which led to people not to vote thinking it did not matter but the Bush call later had no impact because voting was over. It always bugged me when the MSM said they called it equally bad because they called it for both sides. But their calls only affected one side. They are pitiful

I guess I have 2 problems with that part of the interview. First, Kerry had stated numerous times that everything is out there, IE(financial, military, medical, academic, etc), for public consumption and so there should have been a follow up question, come on it was staring Tom in the face. Second, it seems to be a problem because, they edited Kerry saying it out. It just looks so biased to have it there once but not the second time.