Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
****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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bush Sealing | UK diy | |||
OT - JFK vs BUSH | Woodworking | |||
OT-John Kerry | Metalworking | |||
BUSH remembered in WORLD HISTORY: His Legacy | Woodworking |