Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Jim Yanik
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jeffc" wrote in
:




So then why support Bush?




Because Bush will defend the US and it's interests,while Kerry will
surrender us to the UN and his "global test" nonsense.
Kerry is anti-2nd amendment;anti-gun,despite his posturing as a "hunter".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #42   Report Post  
Rob
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My head is firmly planted on my shoulders. I hope you feel good denigrating others who hold a different viewpoint. It does not phase me.

Your response is a science only approach. I am discussing ethical issues. When you look at the people supporting the scientific argument, their life work is science not ethics. The article you cite, also contains a defense clause which discredits the intellectual honesty of the author. It is as follows:

Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS report because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some of those signatories are conservatives.
Such a statement is designed to stifle open discussion, by putting everyone who disagrees in a biased box.

This issue bridges science and ethics. Those who support it dismiss the ethical issues. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are focusing on the ethical issues. I believe that science must heed to the ethical issues. It is dangerous for ethics to heed to science.

You can cite all the science and scientists you want to, that is not relevant to my argument.

Here is an article that discusses the whole issue of stem cell research, not just the ethical/moral aspects:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...125873,00.html

....follow the money!!!




"Erma1ina" wrote in message ...
"Rob S." wrote:


Now, I do not make law and neither did the President. I am not proposing
that the Government outlaw the practice. I am behind the President 100% on
what he actually did, and that was to prohibit federal funding from paying
for the harvesting of human embryos. The Left would have you believe that he
banned the practice altogether, but that is not what actually happened.


Get your head out of . . . the sand and try to understand the damage the
Bush administration's intellectually dishonest, ideologically-driven
policies are having on U.S. science and technology and, consequently,
the longterm well-being of the country.

Check out the website of Scientists and Engineers for Change:

http://www.scientistsandengineersfor...g/founding.php

George W. Bush's INCOMPETENCE is endangering the future of the U.S.

Read the letter, endorsing John Kerry, from 48 Nobel prize winners in
various scientific diciplines:

http://www.scientistsandengineersfor...obelletter.php

Excerpt:

"The prosperity, health, environment, and security of Americans depend
on Presidential leadership to sustain our vibrant science and
technology; to encourage education at home and attract talented
scientists and engineers from abroad; and to nurture a business
environment that transforms new knowledge into new opportunities for
creating quality jobs and reaching shared goals.

"President Bush and his administration are compromising our future on
each of these counts. By reducing funding for scientific research, they
are undermining the foundation of America's future. By setting
unwarranted restrictions on stem cell research, they are impeding
medical advances. By employing inappropriate immigration practices, they
are turning critical scientific talent away from our shores. And by
ignoring scientific consensus on critical issues such as global warming,
they are threatening the earth's future. Unlike previous
administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, the Bush
administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the
policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

  #43   Report Post  
Norminn
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Red Neckerson wrote:
"jeffc" wrote

Well, he IS President of the United States.
Whether you like him or not, he didn't get where he is now by being dumb.


You're right. He got there by being rich.


Lassie didn't get into the movies by being dumb, either.

  #44   Report Post  
William Brown
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jim Yanik wrote:

"jeffc" wrote in
:




So then why support Bush?





Because Bush will defend the US and it's interests,while Kerry will
surrender us to the UN and his "global test" nonsense.
Kerry is anti-2nd amendment;anti-gun,despite his posturing as a "hunter".

Kerry is a true hunter. He went hunting geese the other day, and when
they came out of the field he reported that each of the hunters had got
a goose (!). The reporters were skeptical because no one had seen him
shoot a goose, but they believed him when they checked the geese and
found that one had been shot in the back.
--
SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is
there.
  #45   Report Post  
Phil McCracken
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rob wrote:
My head is firmly planted on my shoulders. I hope you feel good
denigrating others who hold a different viewpoint. It does not phase me.

Your response is a science only approach. I am discussing ethical
issues. When you look at the people supporting the scientific argument,
their life work is science not ethics. The article you cite, also
contains a defense clause which discredits the intellectual honesty of
the author. It is as follows:


/Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS report
because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some of
those signatories are conservatives. /

Such a statement is designed to stifle open discussion, by putting
everyone who disagrees in a biased box.

This issue bridges science and ethics. Those who support it dismiss the
ethical issues. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are
focusing on the ethical issues. I believe that science must heed to the
ethical issues. It is dangerous for ethics to heed to science.

You can cite all the science and scientists you want to, that is not
relevant to my argument.

Here is an article that discusses the whole issue of stem cell research,
not just the ethical/moral aspects:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...125873,00.html

...follow the money!!!


1) It's not possible to top-post and claim to have your head where you
say it is.

2) You're creating a false dichotomy by suggesting that scientists can't
be just as concerned with ethics as they are with science, and false
dichotomy is either a very stupid or very deceitful way to argue.

3) You want to talk about bias and then post a link to a Fox News
article...????


  #46   Report Post  
William Brown
 
Posts: n/a
Default



jeffc wrote:

"George" wrote in message
...

His drone liars keep talking about "leadership" during 9/11. Yeah just


look

at the face
of an idiot pretending to read my pet goat. Picture worth more than a


1000

words.


And his reaction while he was surrounded by small impressionable children
should have been what?



Gee, what a toughie! Um, let's see. How about "kids, something important
has come up and I have to leave early." Wow! Think that might have worked?
Moron.


My experience is that a good leader or executive gets a good staff in
place, and doesn't have to become hysterical when something comes up; he
knows that his staff will be able to handle it. You seem to think the
President should have run out of the room and started shooting, but
perhaps not, because I think your thinking stopped when you were led to
be critical of his not acting, and you have no idea what he should have
done, other than to have done something else.

Mr. Moore has rung his bell, and you are drooling. Incidentally, I
wonder if Mr. Moore is angling for a position in the Kerry
administration; perhaps minister of propaganda?
--
SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is
there.
  #47   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"bill a" wrote in message
. ..
George, you are wasting your time. Liberal fundamentalists are going to
believe
the steaming load dished out to them by the dnc's media (CBS, etc) no

matter
what.
That's how fundimentalists live. That's why the lib politicos love them.
Cheaply produced fiction is always adequate.


I agree completely. I am not any sort of party loyalist. I consider what
they say and see if it has any validity. It always amazes me how people can
be be fed such BS, do no thinking and go in and pull the big "D" on election
day...


  #48   Report Post  
Rob S.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Phil McCracken" wrote in message
...
Rob wrote:
My head is firmly planted on my shoulders. I hope you feel good
denigrating others who hold a different viewpoint. It does not phase me.
Your response is a science only approach. I am discussing ethical
issues. When you look at the people supporting the scientific argument,
their life work is science not ethics. The article you cite, also
contains a defense clause which discredits the intellectual honesty of
the author. It is as follows:
/Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS report
because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some of
those signatories are conservatives. /

Such a statement is designed to stifle open discussion, by putting
everyone who disagrees in a biased box.
This issue bridges science and ethics. Those who support it dismiss the
ethical issues. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are
focusing on the ethical issues. I believe that science must heed to the
ethical issues. It is dangerous for ethics to heed to science.
You can cite all the science and scientists you want to, that is not
relevant to my argument.
Here is an article that discusses the whole issue of stem cell research,
not just the ethical/moral aspects:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...125873,00.html
...follow the money!!!


1) It's not possible to top-post and claim to have your head where you say
it is.


I top-post, because I prefer it that way. Follow the masses if you must.


2) You're creating a false dichotomy by suggesting that scientists can't
be just as concerned with ethics as they are with science, and false
dichotomy is either a very stupid or very deceitful way to argue.


I am not creating a dichotemy at all, more like a conflict of interest. The
two are not mutually exclusive. Every scientist has a duty and obligation to
consider the ethics surrounding their research, but that by no means means
that they all do. I am noting that every article I have ever read in favor
of embryonic stem cell research has either ignored or glossed over the
ethical/moral issues altogether. Including what I read of the link provided
earlier.


3) You want to talk about bias and then post a link to a Fox News
article...????


Now I know who you are, can't hide it very long...Fox News is more fair and
balanced than any other main media player. Personally, I like Newsmax. Fox
News spends too much time being equitable to both sides.

Rob


  #49   Report Post  
Phil McCracken
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rob S. wrote:
"Phil McCracken" wrote in message
...

Rob wrote:

My head is firmly planted on my shoulders. I hope you feel good
denigrating others who hold a different viewpoint. It does not phase me.
Your response is a science only approach. I am discussing ethical
issues. When you look at the people supporting the scientific argument,
their life work is science not ethics. The article you cite, also
contains a defense clause which discredits the intellectual honesty of
the author. It is as follows:
/Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS report
because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some of
those signatories are conservatives. /

Such a statement is designed to stifle open discussion, by putting
everyone who disagrees in a biased box.
This issue bridges science and ethics. Those who support it dismiss the
ethical issues. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are
focusing on the ethical issues. I believe that science must heed to the
ethical issues. It is dangerous for ethics to heed to science.
You can cite all the science and scientists you want to, that is not
relevant to my argument.
Here is an article that discusses the whole issue of stem cell research,
not just the ethical/moral aspects:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...125873,00.html
...follow the money!!!


1) It's not possible to top-post and claim to have your head where you say
it is.



I top-post, because I prefer it that way. Follow the masses if you must.


2) You're creating a false dichotomy by suggesting that scientists can't
be just as concerned with ethics as they are with science, and false
dichotomy is either a very stupid or very deceitful way to argue.



I am not creating a dichotemy at all, more like a conflict of interest. The
two are not mutually exclusive. Every scientist has a duty and obligation to
consider the ethics surrounding their research, but that by no means means
that they all do. I am noting that every article I have ever read in favor
of embryonic stem cell research has either ignored or glossed over the
ethical/moral issues altogether. Including what I read of the link provided
earlier.


3) You want to talk about bias and then post a link to a Fox News
article...????



Now I know who you are, can't hide it very long...Fox News is more fair and
balanced than any other main media player. Personally, I like Newsmax. Fox
News spends too much time being equitable to both sides.

Rob



I guess you must be right. Not sure how you could create a "dichotemy"
if you don't know how to spell it. Did it ever occur to you that science
and ethics, while obviously linked, are different subjects? Or to put it
another way, any scientific issue may be discussed from a scientific
viewpoint or an ethical viewpoint, and those are not necessarily both
appropriate in the same discussion. Is it possible to develop stem cells
in a way that will greatly benefit humanity? Would it be ethical/moral
to do so? Separate questions, if you're a researcher.
  #50   Report Post  
jeffc
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"jeffc" wrote in

So then why support Bush?


Because Bush will defend the US and it's interests,while Kerry will
surrender us to the UN and his "global test" nonsense.


You're right - it is nonsense. The problem is Bush invented the nonsense,
not Kerry. What Kerry meant and what Bush said Kerry meant are 2 different
things.

Kerry is anti-2nd amendment;anti-gun,despite his posturing as a "hunter".


What is with you morons who think reasonable gun control is "anti-gun"? And
don't give me any bull**** about "it's just a first step".




  #51   Report Post  
jeffc
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"TURTLE" wrote in message
...

Well, he IS President of the United States.
Whether you like him or not, he didn't get where he is now by being

dumb.

You're right. He got there by being rich.


Kerry got to be a shooter to the President job by being RICH too. Kerry is

6
time richer than the whole Bush Family combined. The next time you pick up

a
bottle ketchup look on it and see Heinz wrote on it.


News flash! He didn't marry Heinz until 1995. He had already been a
senator for 11 years at that point! Jeez.


  #52   Report Post  
jeffc
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"TURTLE" wrote in message
...

I did get my Master's and my brother did get his PhD and both of us

earned
our way in, and we got better scores than Bush. I had better scores

than
Bush, but I couldn't get into an Ivy League school. Do you know why

that
is? It's because I wasn't qualified. Let me put that another way.

Bush
was even less qualified than I was to get into Yale, yet he got in.

Would
you care to explain to everyone here how that happened?


This is Turtle.

Yes I sure can. The Bush Family had M.O.N.E.Y. and got his ass in there.

Also
Kerry had M.O.N.E.Y. TOO. Kerry was dating JFK's Niece at the time that he
wanted into Yale. He could not get into Harvard because of grade point

average
and had to accept Yale. If your dating one of the Kennedy family, You can

get
into any school you want, if you have the grade point average that is.

Kerry
often went salling with JFK in Chesa Peak bay working his way into

political
arena.


OK I will buy that! What I can't stand is people using Bush's academic
record as "proof" of his intelligence or profound knowledge.


  #53   Report Post  
jeffc
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"William Brown" wrote in message
...

And his reaction while he was surrounded by small impressionable

children
should have been what?



Gee, what a toughie! Um, let's see. How about "kids, something

important
has come up and I have to leave early." Wow! Think that might have

worked?
Moron.


My experience is that a good leader or executive gets a good staff in
place, and doesn't have to become hysterical when something comes up;


Did I say anything about being hysterical?

he knows that his staff will be able to handle it. You seem to think the
President should have run out of the room and started shooting,


Now why would you say something so stupid when I just explicitly stated what
he should have done? Next question: if Bush's staff can handle all security
problems, then why is Bush going around campaigning about what a great
leader he was during this difficult time of crisis? You can't have it both
ways, and neither can Bush.


  #54   Report Post  
jeffc
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George" wrote in message
...

"bill a" wrote in message
. ..
George, you are wasting your time. Liberal fundamentalists are going

to
believe
the steaming load dished out to them by the dnc's media (CBS, etc) no

matter
what.
That's how fundimentalists live. That's why the lib politicos love

them.
Cheaply produced fiction is always adequate.


I agree completely. I am not any sort of party loyalist. I consider what
they say and see if it has any validity. It always amazes me how people

can
be be fed such BS, do no thinking and go in and pull the big "D" on

election
day...


As opposed to, say, straight party Republican voting? Don't make me laugh.


  #55   Report Post  
Jim Yanik
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jeffc" wrote in
m:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"jeffc" wrote in

So then why support Bush?


Because Bush will defend the US and it's interests,while Kerry will
surrender us to the UN and his "global test" nonsense.


You're right - it is nonsense. The problem is Bush invented the
nonsense, not Kerry. What Kerry meant and what Bush said Kerry meant
are 2 different things.


I have to laugh at you folks who fall for the "nuances" of Kerry.
His entire voting record and comments show he meant the "global test".


Kerry is anti-2nd amendment;anti-gun,despite his posturing as a
"hunter".


What is with you morons who think reasonable gun control is
"anti-gun"? And don't give me any bull**** about "it's just a first
step".




"reasonable" can be defined anyway you want.Reasonable to who?

And what criminal pays any attention to gun laws?

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

I also note that Kerry said in Outdoor Life magazine that he owns a
"Chinese Communist assault rifle".yet he favors and sponsors legislation
that prohibits citizens from owning them.Kerry feigns being a hunter while
having voted for every gun control law he could,even laws that would ban
hunting ammo and hunting firearms.
(although the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or sporting;its so that
the US people have the ability to "alter or abolish" a bad gov't,as stated
in the Declaration of Independence.Remember that the US was created by
armed revolt against the incumbent [British] gov't.
I also wonder if you even know what an "assault weapon" is.

What you Kerry fans ignore in your blindness is that Kerry promises
everything to everyone.

And you call me a moron....at least I can post without resorting to name-
calling.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net


  #56   Report Post  
Jim Yanik
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jeffc" wrote in
m:


"TURTLE" wrote in message
...

Well, he IS President of the United States.
Whether you like him or not, he didn't get where he is now by
being

dumb.

You're right. He got there by being rich.


Kerry got to be a shooter to the President job by being RICH too.
Kerry is

6
time richer than the whole Bush Family combined. The next time you
pick up

a
bottle ketchup look on it and see Heinz wrote on it.


News flash! He didn't marry Heinz until 1995. He had already been a
senator for 11 years at that point! Jeez.



Heinz is Kerry's SECOND rich wife.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #57   Report Post  
jeffc
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

And what criminal pays any attention to gun laws?


Ah, the old "they won't follow the law, so why have a law?" argument.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Moron.


  #58   Report Post  
Jim Yanik
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jeffc" wrote in
m:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

And what criminal pays any attention to gun laws?


Ah, the old "they won't follow the law, so why have a law?" argument.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Moron.




No,the law would only affect ordinary decent citizens(ODCs).
So-called "reasonable gun laws" are just an attempt to deny ODCs their 2nd
Amendment rights.If you paid any attention to what the gun banners have
said publicly in the past,that's their goal;to ban guns incrementally,law
by law,to achieve what they could not do directly.

And of course,there's that name-calling again,a sure sign of a failing
argument.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #59   Report Post  
David Gale
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quoth jeffc :
"David Gale" wrote:
Ok, now you have me curious. You said, "I did get my Master's and my
brother did get his PhD and both of us earned our way in, and we got
better scores than Bush. I had better scores than Bush, but I
couldn't get into an Ivy League school." So, how is Rob wrong to
say that you got a Master's, that you haven't disclosed your
discipline or university, and that you couldn't get into Yale?
(Granted, for the last one, you merely said 'an Ivy', rather than
Yale specifically, but Yale is one of the eight Ivies...

Which part of his statement is wrong, and shows a failure to draw
logicial conclusions, since I can't see the failure (and did happen
to graduate from an Ivy, though only undergrad rather than grad)?


I said I tried to get into an Ivy League school. He said I couldn't
get into Harvard. I said wrong school. Then he said it must have
been Yale. He seems to be under the impression those are the only 2
Ivy League schools, or for some odd reason I tried to get into one of
those 2 schools just because that's where Bush went. That's called a
non sequitur (look it up) and this newsgroup is just full of them.
It's also the reason the American people can't figure out who to vote
for - they keep making non sequiturs. By the way, the school I
couldn't get into was Cornell. (There are 8 schools in the Ivy
League.)


Ah. I think the problem here is not one of a failure to draw logical
conclusions, then, but rather an issue of unclear syntax.

The statement, "I couldn't get into an Ivy League school." can mean two
different things--a) I couldn't get into one specific Ivy; or b) I couldn't
get into any Ivies at all. Now, most people would read the statement in its
original context as the general version (b), since no specific Ivies were
mentioned. Perhaps a better way to phrase your statement would've been "I
couldn't get into the Ivy I applied to." This would avoid the problems
encountered here, since it is very clear that it is to be read as a specific
statement, rather than the general.

Of course, the general interpretation of your statement would be the
stronger interpretation of your original argument; that is, "I couldn't get
into any Ivies, including the one Bush got accepted into, because I wasn't
qualified, even though my scores were better than Bush" is a much solider
argument than "I couldn't get into a school which happens to be in the same
group as the one Bush got into, even though I was more qualified than he
was". The first claims that even Bush's school would've rejected you, and
so should've rejected Bush, while the second indicates that perhaps you
should've applied to a different Ivy, since it may have had lower acceptance
standards than the one you applied to, considering that it was willing to
take someone who was less qualified than yourself.

Reading your original post, I believed you to be making this first argument;
however, your subsequent attacks on Rob S.'s interpretation, as well as your
answer to my question, have made it clear that you were actually going for
the second. Personally, I think it would've been better for your case to
stick to the first, general approach, rather than jumping on Rob's naming
the wrong school, which has brought your original point to the second,
specific, case.


  #60   Report Post  
no thanks
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 28 Oct 2004 01:16:14 GMT, Jim Yanik . wrote:

I have to laugh at you folks who fall for the "nuances" of Kerry.
His entire voting record and comments show he meant the "global test".


What you Kerry fans ignore in your blindness is that Kerry promises
everything to everyone.

And you call me a moron....at least I can post without resorting to name-
calling.


All correct points. The Kerry camp is very insecure and they try to
take out their frustrations on others who "dare" disagree.


  #61   Report Post  
William Brown
 
Posts: n/a
Default



jeffc wrote:

"William Brown" wrote in message
...

And his reaction while he was surrounded by small impressionable


children

should have been what?


Gee, what a toughie! Um, let's see. How about "kids, something


important

has come up and I have to leave early." Wow! Think that might have


worked?

Moron.



My experience is that a good leader or executive gets a good staff in
place, and doesn't have to become hysterical when something comes up;



Did I say anything about being hysterical?


he knows that his staff will be able to handle it. You seem to think the
President should have run out of the room and started shooting,



Now why would you say something so stupid when I just explicitly stated what
he should have done? Next question: if Bush's staff can handle all security
problems, then why is Bush going around campaigning about what a great
leader he was during this difficult time of crisis? You can't have it both
ways, and neither can Bush.

You apparently can't comprehend how a leader functions. Perhaps if you
had been able to get into Cornell they could have taught you.

--
SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is
there.
  #62   Report Post  
TURTLE
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"TURTLE" wrote in message
...

Well, he IS President of the United States.
Whether you like him or not, he didn't get where he is now by being

dumb.

You're right. He got there by being rich.


Kerry got to be a shooter to the President job by being RICH too. Kerry is

6
time richer than the whole Bush Family combined. The next time you pick up

a
bottle ketchup look on it and see Heinz wrote on it.


News flash! He didn't marry Heinz until 1995. He had already been a
senator for 11 years at that point! Jeez.


This is Turtle.

Earth to Jeffc , His first wife was a Multi-Million Airest , too. He trade her
in for the Heinz Billion dollar Airest . You need to Check up on your man more
to know who your putting your vote on. He would not even date any women that was
not worth $100 Mil. .

TURTLE


  #63   Report Post  
TURTLE
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"TURTLE" wrote in message
...

I did get my Master's and my brother did get his PhD and both of us

earned
our way in, and we got better scores than Bush. I had better scores

than
Bush, but I couldn't get into an Ivy League school. Do you know why

that
is? It's because I wasn't qualified. Let me put that another way.

Bush
was even less qualified than I was to get into Yale, yet he got in.

Would
you care to explain to everyone here how that happened?


This is Turtle.

Yes I sure can. The Bush Family had M.O.N.E.Y. and got his ass in there.

Also
Kerry had M.O.N.E.Y. TOO. Kerry was dating JFK's Niece at the time that he
wanted into Yale. He could not get into Harvard because of grade point

average
and had to accept Yale. If your dating one of the Kennedy family, You can

get
into any school you want, if you have the grade point average that is.

Kerry
often went salling with JFK in Chesa Peak bay working his way into

political
arena.


OK I will buy that! What I can't stand is people using Bush's academic
record as "proof" of his intelligence or profound knowledge.


This is Turtle.

Well what chart would you like to use the collage level a person finished or
maybe how may months a person done in Nam. I've heard they have a good collage
call Nam University and Kerry finished 4 months there.

Kerry -- A -- BS in Polical Science from Yale.
Bush -- A -- Master degree in Business Administration from Harvard.

Which one would you want to take care of your financial business ? A Political
Science , major or a Master's degree-ee in Business , Major.

I don't know about you but i would want a MBA running my business.

TURTLE


  #64   Report Post  
Erma1ina
 
Posts: n/a
Default

TURTLE wrote:

-- Nothing worth quoting --

about John Kerry's 2 marriages:

1) to Julia Thorne, sister of Kerry's longtime friend and advisor, David
Thorne, from 1970 to 1988 (separated in 1982)

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Julia-Thorne

2) to Teresa Heinz-Kerry from 1995 to present

http://marriage.about.com/od/celebri.../johnkerry.htm

BTW, here's the worst that the right wingnut rag (NewsMax.com) could dig
up:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...4/133600.shtml

Thursday, March 4, 2004

KERRY'S EX-WIFE ENDORSES KERRY

It's not often that after a powerful political couple break up, the
ex-spouse turns around and endorses her ex-husband.

But Sen. John Kerry's first wife, Philadelphia heiress Julia Thorne, has
done that.

She says Kerry is a good man and deserves public support.

But her own revelations about her marriage to the Boston aristocrat show
how tragic marriage can be in the political spotlight, and how his
unbridled ambition might have contributed to the breakup.

In her 1996 book, "Change of Heart," Thorne said that playing the role
of wife to the rising political star had made her so depressed she
wanted to kill herself.

Without ever mentioning Kerry by name, she complained: "Politics became
my husband's life. During the years of our marriage, he was appointed
and elected to several political offices. Eventually he was elected to
the U.S. Senate."

Thorne said that it wasn't long before she felt neglected. "The day our
first child was born, my husband started law school thirty-five miles
away. Stuck studying in the library until the early morning hours, he
often did not come home.

"I was alone and overwhelmed," she remembers, "abandoned with a new baby
in a town that held political disdain for us. ... I tried to be happy
for him, but after fourteen years as a political wife, I associated
politics only with anger, fear and loneliness."

'Vacuum of Misunderstanding'


As Kerry continued to focus on his career and political future, his
wife's mental state deteriorated to the point of suicidal depression. In
her 1993 book, "You Are Not Alone," Thorne chronicles with chilling
vividness her decision to try to kill herself.

"February 1980, five months after my 36th birthday, my mind ravaged by
corroding voices, my body defeated by bone rattling panics, I sat on the
edge of my bed minutes from taking my own life.

"For weeks I had silently prepared my death. I believed I was a failure.
I could no longer pretend I was of use to my husband or my children. ...
I was emotionally, spiritually, and physically exhausted by a life
destroying affliction - depression ... I was also alone - dying a lonely
death in a vacuum of misunderstanding, ignorance and shame."

Two years after her brush with suicide, Thorne said she asked Kerry for
a separation. "Six years and one reconciliation would pass before we
actually divorced," she wrote.

She has said little about the marriage since writing her two books,
beyond telling reporters that her ex-husband was a good man and that she
supported his bid for the White House.

Despite her continuing political support, however, she and Kerry have
clashed over their children at least twice in the intervening years.

In 1995, the Boston Globe reported:

"Seven weeks before Sen. John F. Kerry married wealthy heiress Teresa
Heinz last month, his ex-wife, Julia Thorne, filed suit seeking an
increase in support payments, asserting that the senator's income and
resources 'have substantially increased' since she previously sought an
increase in 1991."

Thorne insisted that the timing of the suit was purely coincidental and
had nothing to do with her ex-husband's remarriage.

But in 1997, when Sen. Kerry sought to have the marriage that had
produced their two daughters annulled, Thorne was furious at being asked
to acquiesce.

In an interview with the Boston Globe she said the request "was
disrespectful to me ... and devoid of any sense of the humanity of what
this means to me and the children."

"I cannot look my children in the eyes or stand before them with
integrity and know in my heart that I have contributed in any way to a
process that invalidates and nullified the union from which they were
created," Thorne raged.

Still, the spurned ex-wife decided not to contest the annulment.

In a statement released to the press, Kerry declined to comment on his
request for annulment, except to say that he "very much understands
Julia's feelings and appreciates her support."

Thorne has since remarried and lives quietly in Montana.
  #65   Report Post  
Norminn
 
Posts: n/a
Default


clipped

I don't know about you but i would want a MBA running my business.

TURTLE



Rhodes scholars for me. Nothing better. MBA's nowadays are run of the
mill; basic for low to mid level management. Leadership of the most
powerful and wealthy nation on earth should make folks ask for more than
a mediocre politician with a college degree.



  #66   Report Post  
William Brown
 
Posts: n/a
Default



TURTLE wrote:
"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"TURTLE" wrote in message
...

I did get my Master's and my brother did get his PhD and both of us


earned

our way in, and we got better scores than Bush. I had better scores


than

Bush, but I couldn't get into an Ivy League school. Do you know why


that

is? It's because I wasn't qualified. Let me put that another way.


Bush

was even less qualified than I was to get into Yale, yet he got in.


Would

you care to explain to everyone here how that happened?


This is Turtle.

Yes I sure can. The Bush Family had M.O.N.E.Y. and got his ass in there.


Also

Kerry had M.O.N.E.Y. TOO. Kerry was dating JFK's Niece at the time that he
wanted into Yale. He could not get into Harvard because of grade point


average

and had to accept Yale. If your dating one of the Kennedy family, You can


get

into any school you want, if you have the grade point average that is.


Kerry

often went salling with JFK in Chesa Peak bay working his way into


political

arena.


OK I will buy that! What I can't stand is people using Bush's academic
record as "proof" of his intelligence or profound knowledge.



This is Turtle.

Well what chart would you like to use the collage level a person finished or
maybe how may months a person done in Nam. I've heard they have a good collage
call Nam University and Kerry finished 4 months there.

Kerry -- A -- BS in Polical Science from Yale.
Bush -- A -- Master degree in Business Administration from Harvard.

Which one would you want to take care of your financial business ? A Political
Science , major or a Master's degree-ee in Business , Major.

I don't know about you but i would want a MBA running my business.

TURTLE


I'm surprised no Kerry backer has countered by pointing out that he did
go on to get a law degree. Perhaps thats not something to brag about.
An MBA is pretty mundane these days, unless it is from one of a few very
prestigious schools, and Harvard is certainly in that group.
--
SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is
there.
  #67   Report Post  
TURTLE
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Erma1ina" wrote in message
...
TURTLE wrote:

-- Nothing worth quoting --

about John Kerry's 2 marriages:

1) to Julia Thorne, sister of Kerry's longtime friend and advisor, David
Thorne, from 1970 to 1988 (separated in 1982)

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Julia-Thorne

2) to Teresa Heinz-Kerry from 1995 to present

http://marriage.about.com/od/celebri.../johnkerry.htm

BTW, here's the worst that the right wingnut rag (NewsMax.com) could dig
up:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...4/133600.shtml

Thursday, March 4, 2004

KERRY'S EX-WIFE ENDORSES KERRY

It's not often that after a powerful political couple break up, the
ex-spouse turns around and endorses her ex-husband.

But Sen. John Kerry's first wife, Philadelphia heiress Julia Thorne, has
done that.

She says Kerry is a good man and deserves public support.

But her own revelations about her marriage to the Boston aristocrat show
how tragic marriage can be in the political spotlight, and how his
unbridled ambition might have contributed to the breakup.

In her 1996 book, "Change of Heart," Thorne said that playing the role
of wife to the rising political star had made her so depressed she
wanted to kill herself.

Without ever mentioning Kerry by name, she complained: "Politics became
my husband's life. During the years of our marriage, he was appointed
and elected to several political offices. Eventually he was elected to
the U.S. Senate."

Thorne said that it wasn't long before she felt neglected. "The day our
first child was born, my husband started law school thirty-five miles
away. Stuck studying in the library until the early morning hours, he
often did not come home.

"I was alone and overwhelmed," she remembers, "abandoned with a new baby
in a town that held political disdain for us. ... I tried to be happy
for him, but after fourteen years as a political wife, I associated
politics only with anger, fear and loneliness."

'Vacuum of Misunderstanding'


As Kerry continued to focus on his career and political future, his
wife's mental state deteriorated to the point of suicidal depression. In
her 1993 book, "You Are Not Alone," Thorne chronicles with chilling
vividness her decision to try to kill herself.

"February 1980, five months after my 36th birthday, my mind ravaged by
corroding voices, my body defeated by bone rattling panics, I sat on the
edge of my bed minutes from taking my own life.

"For weeks I had silently prepared my death. I believed I was a failure.
I could no longer pretend I was of use to my husband or my children. ...
I was emotionally, spiritually, and physically exhausted by a life
destroying affliction - depression ... I was also alone - dying a lonely
death in a vacuum of misunderstanding, ignorance and shame."

Two years after her brush with suicide, Thorne said she asked Kerry for
a separation. "Six years and one reconciliation would pass before we
actually divorced," she wrote.

She has said little about the marriage since writing her two books,
beyond telling reporters that her ex-husband was a good man and that she
supported his bid for the White House.

Despite her continuing political support, however, she and Kerry have
clashed over their children at least twice in the intervening years.

In 1995, the Boston Globe reported:

"Seven weeks before Sen. John F. Kerry married wealthy heiress Teresa
Heinz last month, his ex-wife, Julia Thorne, filed suit seeking an
increase in support payments, asserting that the senator's income and
resources 'have substantially increased' since she previously sought an
increase in 1991."

Thorne insisted that the timing of the suit was purely coincidental and
had nothing to do with her ex-husband's remarriage.

But in 1997, when Sen. Kerry sought to have the marriage that had
produced their two daughters annulled, Thorne was furious at being asked
to acquiesce.

In an interview with the Boston Globe she said the request "was
disrespectful to me ... and devoid of any sense of the humanity of what
this means to me and the children."

"I cannot look my children in the eyes or stand before them with
integrity and know in my heart that I have contributed in any way to a
process that invalidates and nullified the union from which they were
created," Thorne raged.

Still, the spurned ex-wife decided not to contest the annulment.

In a statement released to the press, Kerry declined to comment on his
request for annulment, except to say that he "very much understands
Julia's feelings and appreciates her support."

Thorne has since remarried and lives quietly in Montana.


This is Turtle.

WOW it took you all that band wide to say what i say in three line and you call
it waistful data.

TURTLE


  #68   Report Post  
TURTLE
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"William Brown" wrote in message
...


TURTLE wrote:
"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"TURTLE" wrote in message
...

I did get my Master's and my brother did get his PhD and both of us

earned

our way in, and we got better scores than Bush. I had better scores

than

Bush, but I couldn't get into an Ivy League school. Do you know why

that

is? It's because I wasn't qualified. Let me put that another way.

Bush

was even less qualified than I was to get into Yale, yet he got in.

Would

you care to explain to everyone here how that happened?


This is Turtle.

Yes I sure can. The Bush Family had M.O.N.E.Y. and got his ass in there.

Also

Kerry had M.O.N.E.Y. TOO. Kerry was dating JFK's Niece at the time that he
wanted into Yale. He could not get into Harvard because of grade point

average

and had to accept Yale. If your dating one of the Kennedy family, You can

get

into any school you want, if you have the grade point average that is.

Kerry

often went salling with JFK in Chesa Peak bay working his way into

political

arena.

OK I will buy that! What I can't stand is people using Bush's academic
record as "proof" of his intelligence or profound knowledge.



This is Turtle.

Well what chart would you like to use the collage level a person finished or
maybe how may months a person done in Nam. I've heard they have a good
collage call Nam University and Kerry finished 4 months there.

Kerry -- A -- BS in Polical Science from Yale.
Bush -- A -- Master degree in Business Administration from Harvard.

Which one would you want to take care of your financial business ? A
Political Science , major or a Master's degree-ee in Business , Major.

I don't know about you but i would want a MBA running my business.

TURTLE

I'm surprised no Kerry backer has countered by pointing out that he did go on
to get a law degree. Perhaps thats not something to brag about. An MBA is
pretty mundane these days, unless it is from one of a few very prestigious
schools, and Harvard is certainly in that group.
--


This is Turtle.

Your point seems to have a point here but here is the counter to it.

Bring out Kerry being a Smart Ass Lawyer and Bush just being a Dumb MBA from
Harvard.

Who would you want running your company for you and handling your money for you
a Smart Ass Lawyer or a Dumb MBA from Harvard?

I still say I don't want no Smart Ass lawyer touching my money, but maybe a Dumb
MBA from Harvard.

TURTLE


  #69   Report Post  
TURTLE
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Erma1ina" wrote in message
...
Touting Dubya's academic "achievements" someone wrote:


I don't know about you but i would want a MBA running my business.


Contact Dubya after Nov. 2; he may be looking for work.

Here's the recollection of one of Dubya's Hahvahd B-school professors:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503181

Originally published on Friday, July 16, 2004 in the News section of The
Harvard Crimson.

FORMER HBS PROF BLASTS BUSH

By SIMON W. VOZICK-LEVINSON
Crimson Staff Writer


This is Turtle

All you can come up with here is one Japanese professor with a hard on for Bush.
Here is some points for you.

Liberal thinkers don't like republicans.
Liberials don't like youth with **** and Vinigar thinking.
Liberials don't like anybody that has more money and fame than them.
Liberial likes to think Poor people are poor because some rich fellow stole it
from them.
Liberials like yourself like Smart Ass Lawyers and shund Dumb MBA's from
Harvard.
Liberial may not know it but there is a bunch of Dumb MBA's running the country
right now and i don't mean in political office either. Bush is the highest
educated President that has ever helt office except if you call a smart ass
lawyers as business educated person.

Your wish may come true of getting a smart ass lawyer as head of the country but
remember this. The country and it's thinking will be decide or look like a
lawyer would set up a country to be run. You would probley be able to sue
another person for giving you the flue.

TURTLE


  #70   Report Post  
TURTLE
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Norminn" wrote in message
...

clipped

I don't know about you but i would want a MBA running my business.

TURTLE


Rhodes scholars for me. Nothing better. MBA's nowadays are run of the mill;
basic for low to mid level management. Leadership of the most powerful and
wealthy nation on earth should make folks ask for more than a mediocre
politician with a college degree.


This is Turtle.

Your thoughts here a very good but really smart Business people has no interest
in political possionsing theirself. A division manager for Exxon [ there is 27
Divisions in the U.S. ] makes 3 times what Bush makes and don't have to plead to
the public for their job ever 4 years.

I wish that Politics would be able to draw on the Smart people of this country
but it's just too much bull**** to interest them. The worst thing that runs them
off is they have to learn to lie and be straight faced about it. Smart People
just don't like that.

TURTLE




  #71   Report Post  
Erma1ina
 
Posts: n/a
Default

TURTLE wrote:


-- nothing worth quoting --

Turtle, you sound like "a good ol' boy that ain't."

Like Dubya -- all hat and no cattle.

;-)

BTW, when's that "special info / event that will come out before the
election" gonna happen?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
  #72   Report Post  
rnr_construction
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"TURTLE" wrote in message
...

I did get my Master's and my brother did get his PhD and both of us

earned
our way in, and we got better scores than Bush. I had better scores

than
Bush, but I couldn't get into an Ivy League school. Do you know why

that
is? It's because I wasn't qualified. Let me put that another way.

Bush
was even less qualified than I was to get into Yale, yet he got in.

Would
you care to explain to everyone here how that happened?


This is Turtle.

Yes I sure can. The Bush Family had M.O.N.E.Y. and got his ass in there.

Also
Kerry had M.O.N.E.Y. TOO. Kerry was dating JFK's Niece at the time that
he
wanted into Yale. He could not get into Harvard because of grade point

average
and had to accept Yale. If your dating one of the Kennedy family, You can

get
into any school you want, if you have the grade point average that is.

Kerry
often went salling with JFK in Chesa Peak bay working his way into

political
arena.


OK I will buy that! What I can't stand is people using Bush's academic
record as "proof" of his intelligence or profound knowledge.

****in Bush is Dumb as a box of rocks, Christ I saw him lose 3 debates in
a row, what a moron.
And to think... He suckered in the whole heartland. WTF?


  #73   Report Post  
Joe Bobst
 
Posts: n/a
Default

****in Bush is Dumb as a box of rocks, Christ I saw him lose 3 debates in
a row, what a moron.
And to think... He suckered in the whole heartland. WTF?

He won the election, popular vote and electoral college. Get over it. Next
election you can vote for Hillary and Obama and they'll lose, too.

Joe

  #74   Report Post  
John Jones
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rnr_construction wrote:

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"TURTLE" wrote in message
...

I did get my Master's and my brother did get his PhD and both of us

earned
our way in, and we got better scores than Bush. I had better scores

than
Bush, but I couldn't get into an Ivy League school. Do you know why

that
is? It's because I wasn't qualified. Let me put that another way.

Bush
was even less qualified than I was to get into Yale, yet he got in.

Would
you care to explain to everyone here how that happened?


This is Turtle.

Yes I sure can. The Bush Family had M.O.N.E.Y. and got his ass in there.

Also
Kerry had M.O.N.E.Y. TOO. Kerry was dating JFK's Niece at the time that
he
wanted into Yale. He could not get into Harvard because of grade point

average
and had to accept Yale. If your dating one of the Kennedy family, You can

get
into any school you want, if you have the grade point average that is.

Kerry
often went salling with JFK in Chesa Peak bay working his way into

political
arena.


OK I will buy that! What I can't stand is people using Bush's academic
record as "proof" of his intelligence or profound knowledge.

****in Bush is Dumb as a box of rocks, Christ I saw him lose 3 debates in
a row, what a moron.
And to think... He suckered in the whole heartland. WTF?


Yeah, he's so stupid that he's the first President to get over 50% of the vote
since the 1980s. He's so stupid yet the "smart" candidate wasn't able to
convince enough voters to go his way.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bush Sealing AndyM UK diy 1 September 20th 04 12:21 AM
OT - JFK vs BUSH Noons Woodworking 106 March 6th 04 05:00 AM
OT-John Kerry Gunner Metalworking 137 February 11th 04 08:38 PM
BUSH remembered in WORLD HISTORY: His Legacy [email protected] Woodworking 4 October 19th 03 06:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"