Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Bill Donahue - Kerry is a polygamist

0 views
Skip to first unread message

aalu...@webtv.net

unread,
Apr 12, 2004, 11:29:09 PM4/12/04
to
Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive
Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist.

How many nonCatholics watching will understand the nuance of this?
Annulment is not a legal term. Married to first wife is.
I am sure Bush and gang will sieze on the issue of annulment and imply
like Donahue that Kerry is still married to his first wife even though
legally he is divorced without clarifying only under the eyes of the
Catholic Church.

Millions of good Catholics get remarried without annulments something
that the vast majority of priests and bishops took as a reality of
life. Now thanks to Donahue and soon Bush that will be used as a
political wedge issue.

Abortion politics at its worst. Destroy men by confusing church law with
civil law.

Freethinker

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 12:48:31 AM4/13/04
to
aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
> tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
> Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
> wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive
> Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist.

I saw/listened to that segment tonight. I had not been familiar with Bill
Donahue previously, and was struck by how hateful he seemed. Did you hear
that bit at the end, where he was gleefully, smilingly telling the female
panelist that she had been thrown out of the Catholic church? (She calmly
denied it.) What a repulsive person, to delight in the (alleged)
misfortunes of another, even a political rival. And do to so openly! He's
got to be the worst kind of PR for people who share his point of view.

It's disheartening to see politics reduced to personal attacks, and tonight
we saw it on two levels. He attacked Kerry, and he attacked the panelist.


Just Me

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 1:03:42 AM4/13/04
to
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:48:31 -0700, "Freethinker" <fa...@address.net>
wrote:


>I saw/listened to that segment tonight. I had not been familiar with Bill
>Donahue previously, and was struck by how hateful he seemed.

It says something about a show that would have him as a guest.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
He was about the most hateful "person" I've ever seen.
Absolutely Satanic.

I fear this is only the beginning...

Is it November yet ?


Peace, --JM

Tom Cervo

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 2:37:29 AM4/13/04
to
>Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
>tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
>Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
>wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive
>Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist.

Kerry's getting a lot of flak from that moral teacher, the Boston Archdiocese.
Maybe they'll quiet down if he starts raping little boys.

Andrew Ryan Chang

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 3:39:01 AM4/13/04
to
<aalu...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
>tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
>Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
>wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive

Wow, sounds like an oft-used sitcom plot.

--
Thus we see such incongruities as George W. Bush, the "legacy" admission to
Andover and Yale, opposing affirmative action, which would extend preferences
similar to those that benefited him to minority students and women.
-- Lars-Erik Nelson (http://www.bartcop.com/lnelson.htm)

David Johnston

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 3:53:40 AM4/13/04
to
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:29:09 -0400, aalu...@webtv.net wrote:

>Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
>tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
>Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
>wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive
>Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist.
>
>How many nonCatholics watching will understand the nuance of this?

Pretty much all of them, I'd suspect. Catholicism's quirks are well
publicised.

Joe S.

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 5:26:44 AM4/13/04
to
Who really gives a damn what the Catholic church thinks? Their credibility
was pretty well shot when the news leaked about priests puffing little boys
and then being protected by the church.

--
----
Joe S.


<aalu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3022-407...@storefull-3313.bay.webtv.net...

dre...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 9:05:58 AM4/13/04
to
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:29:09 -0400, aalu...@webtv.net wrote:

>How many nonCatholics watching will understand the nuance of this?

Does anyone think Kerry is a real Catholic who actually believes in
the infallibility of the pope ?

Zach G

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 11:33:51 AM4/13/04
to
> Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
> tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
> Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
> wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive
> Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist.
>

My understanding is that Kerry actually did get an annulment. I'm not
familiar with Bill Donahue but if that's what he said I guess his
concerns are unwarranted.

> How many nonCatholics watching will understand the nuance of this?
> Annulment is not a legal term. Married to first wife is.
> I am sure Bush and gang will sieze on the issue of annulment and imply
> like Donahue that Kerry is still married to his first wife even though
> legally he is divorced without clarifying only under the eyes of the
> Catholic Church.
>

I seriously doubt this. It's possible some wacko-types will argue this
point, but I don't see the President or anybody close to him arguing a
point like this. For one thing, President Reagan also divorced his
first wife and remarried, so it would seem rather strange to criticise
Kerry and not Reagan (even though Reagan was not a Catholic).


> Millions of good Catholics get remarried without annulments something
> that the vast majority of priests and bishops took as a reality of
> life.

It might be nit-picking, but I'm not sure you can call someone a
"good" Catholic if they get divorced and remarried, in as far as that
particular rule is concerned. I'm not saying I agree with the rule -
indeed, I'm not a Catholic, and I happen to think it's fine for people
to get divorced and remarried if the circumstances warrant it. But
the Catholic Church makes its own rules, and so from an outsiders'
perspective it would seem that if a person did get divorced (without
annulment) and remarried then they wouldn't be obeying the rules.


> Now thanks to Donahue and soon Bush that will be used as a
> political wedge issue.
>

Like I said, I seriously doubt Bush or anyone close to him will touch
this issue with a 10 foot pole, any more than Kerry will get into the
fact that Bush used to have a drinking problem.

> Abortion politics at its worst. Destroy men by confusing church law with
> civil law.

I'm not sure I want to get into the abortion thing here, but I do
agree that if people bring this up (and I guess Bill Donahue did) then
it's silly and not something people should even consider when they go
to the polls.

T.Carr

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 12:23:58 PM4/13/04
to
"Joe S." <non...@nosuchplace.net> wrote in message news:<c5gc3...@news4.newsguy.com>...

> Who really gives a damn what the Catholic church thinks?

Perhaps a billion + catholics in the world? (at least on religious matters)

Their credibility
> was pretty well shot when the news leaked about priests puffing little boys
> and then being protected by the church.

For every pedophile priest, there are thousands of Mother Theresa's.
But why start looking at issues objectively.

Just vote straight party and dont think..you are well equipped for that

T.Carr

FDR

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 2:06:25 PM4/13/04
to

"T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c213b2e.04041...@posting.google.com...

> "Joe S." <non...@nosuchplace.net> wrote in message
news:<c5gc3...@news4.newsguy.com>...
> > Who really gives a damn what the Catholic church thinks?
>
> Perhaps a billion + catholics in the world? (at least on religious
matters)
>
> Their credibility
> > was pretty well shot when the news leaked about priests puffing little
boys
> > and then being protected by the church.
>
> For every pedophile priest, there are thousands of Mother Theresa's.
> But why start looking at issues objectively.

What you say may be partly true. But what's terribly sickening to me as a
Roman Catholic is how the church, from the Pope on down, have turned their
back to the problem. Instead of trying to cover things up and shuffling
priests around, they should be throwing those bums out that do this shit to
little kids. The Pope seems to have a soft spot for children, but when it
comes down to doing something it's another story. Sorry, but I don't really
feel the Pope deserves the kind of authority he has.

Uniblab

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 5:22:52 PM4/13/04
to

"FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B_Vec.15488$1U2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

>
> "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8c213b2e.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > "Joe S." <non...@nosuchplace.net> wrote in message
> news:<c5gc3...@news4.newsguy.com>...
> >
> > For every pedophile priest, there are thousands of Mother Theresa's.
> > But why start looking at issues objectively.
>
> What you say may be partly true. But what's terribly sickening to me as a
> Roman Catholic is how the church, from the Pope on down, have turned their
> back to the problem. Instead of trying to cover things up and shuffling
> priests around, they should be throwing those bums out that do this shit
to
> little kids. The Pope seems to have a soft spot for children, but when it
> comes down to doing something it's another story. Sorry, but I don't
really
> feel the Pope deserves the kind of authority he has.
>
I'm also a Catholic and I can't believe the lack of accountability. But the
hierarchy thinks they can ride this out, since my parents' generation (60+)
is still financially supporting the church. But they've pretty much lost my
generation, and once the older crowd is gone, they are going to be in deep
trouble. I wish everyone would start withholding their financial support
until some much-needed changes are made.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 7:34:50 PM4/13/04
to
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:29:09 -0400, aalu...@webtv.net wrote:

>Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
>tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
>Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
>wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive
>Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist.

As I understand it, Kerry has referred to himself as a Catholic in
good standing. If he got remarried without an annulment, he is not.
He is lying.

>
>How many nonCatholics watching will understand the nuance of this?
>Annulment is not a legal term. Married to first wife is.
>I am sure Bush and gang will sieze on the issue of annulment and imply
>like Donahue that Kerry is still married to his first wife even though
>legally he is divorced without clarifying only under the eyes of the
>Catholic Church.

Only if he keeps referring to himself as a Catholic in good standing.

>
>Millions of good Catholics get remarried without annulments something
>that the vast majority of priests and bishops took as a reality of
>life. Now thanks to Donahue and soon Bush that will be used as a
>political wedge issue.

Millions of good Catholics DO NOT get remarried in the Church without
annulments. I'd love to see you support this claim. It shows a lack
of understanding of Catholic teaching and tradition.

>
>Abortion politics at its worst. Destroy men by confusing church law with
>civil law.

Only confusion to those who are incapable of listening to the issue
and informing themselves.

Tom Cervo

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 8:20:28 PM4/13/04
to
> For every pedophile priest, there are thousands of Mother Theresa's.
> But why start looking at issues objectively.
>

Actually there was one Mother Theresa, and the reported percentage of priest
committing sexual offences against the young is now put at 4-5% of the total,
so your numbers may be wrong.

T.Carr

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 8:42:52 PM4/13/04
to
"FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<B_Vec.15488$1U2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8c213b2e.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > "Joe S." <non...@nosuchplace.net> wrote in message
> news:<c5gc3...@news4.newsguy.com>...
> > > Who really gives a damn what the Catholic church thinks?
> >
> > Perhaps a billion + catholics in the world? (at least on religious
> matters)
> >
> > Their credibility
> > > was pretty well shot when the news leaked about priests puffing little
> boys
> > > and then being protected by the church.
> >
> > For every pedophile priest, there are thousands of Mother Theresa's.
> > But why start looking at issues objectively.
>

FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com

> What you say may be partly true. But what's terribly sickening to me as a
> Roman Catholic is how the church, from the Pope on down, have turned their
> back to the problem.

I'm not sure how much the Church in Rome was aware of the problem,
but there is no excuse for the conduct of the leadership of the US CC.

Instead of trying to cover things up and shuffling
> priests around, they should be throwing those bums out that do this shit to
> little kids.

After arrest and conviction ny the courts

The Pope seems to have a soft spot for children, but when it
> comes down to doing something it's another story. Sorry, but I don't really
> feel the Pope deserves the kind of authority he has.

The "authority" is based in ages of history and tradition. However
the average parishoner is no longer going to pretend "all is well"
when allegations of any kind are raised in the future (imo)


T.Carr

Quiet Desperation

unread,
Apr 13, 2004, 8:50:48 PM4/13/04
to
In article <3022-407...@storefull-3313.bay.webtv.net>,
<aalu...@webtv.net> wrote:

> Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans.

How come every religious person *I* meet is really left wing?

My friend's mom is an, um, Anglican(?) minister, and she makes Che
Guevara look like Donald Trump.

Just a mystery of life.

Or the fact that I avoid religious people, and hence have a *really*
small sample size. :-)

PkJ0891

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 2:09:46 AM4/14/04
to
In article <ivto70hned7nsl91d...@4ax.com>, "robx...@nowhere.com"
<robx...@nowhere.com> writes:

>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:29:09 -0400, aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
>>tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
>>Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
>>wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive
>>Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist.
>
>As I understand it, Kerry has referred to himself as a Catholic in
>good standing. If he got remarried without an annulment, he is not.
>He is lying.
>
>>
>>How many nonCatholics watching will understand the nuance of this?
>>Annulment is not a legal term. Married to first wife is.
>>I am sure Bush and gang will sieze on the issue of annulment and imply
>>like Donahue that Kerry is still married to his first wife even though
>>legally he is divorced without clarifying only under the eyes of the
>>Catholic Church.
>
>Only if he keeps referring to himself as a Catholic in good standing.
>
>>
>>Millions of good Catholics get remarried without annulments something
>>that the vast majority of priests and bishops took as a reality of
>>life. Now thanks to Donahue and soon Bush that will be used as a
>>political wedge issue.
>
>Millions of good Catholics DO NOT get remarried in the Church without
>annulments. I'd love to see you support this claim. It shows a lack
>of understanding of Catholic teaching and tradition.

I don't give a rip about this, but I was curious about the mini-brouhaha, so I
Googled.

Evidently, Kerry married Theresa in a civil ceremony and did get an annulment.
It doesn't matter when he received the annulment, since his second marriage was
civil. The most the church can claim is that he "lived in sin" with Theresa
(due to the civil ceremony).

One more reason for a strict separation of church and state. God forbid
(pardon the pun) the old anti-Catholic bias reared its quite ugly head . . .
we'd be talking about a serious subject - religious bigots - rather than
obsessing over details of Kerry's second marriage. And, btw, I have no idea
how many Catholics remarry without an annulment, but they don't need an
annulment, if they marry in a civil ceremony.
PKJ

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 7:57:27 AM4/14/04
to

Yes it does matter in the eyes of the Church. If Kerry has referred
to himself as "a Catholic in good standing", then he needs to stop
doing so if he had no annulment before the marriage. That's the whole
point of what Donahue was saying. It may not matter much to you, but
it offends those who practice their faith to hear this nonsense going
on.

>
>One more reason for a strict separation of church and state. God forbid
>(pardon the pun) the old anti-Catholic bias reared its quite ugly head . . .
>we'd be talking about a serious subject - religious bigots - rather than
>obsessing over details of Kerry's second marriage. And, btw, I have no idea
>how many Catholics remarry without an annulment, but they don't need an
>annulment, if they marry in a civil ceremony.

In a legal sense only, but you are most definitely still married to
your first wife in the eyes of the Church, thus ineligible for the
sacraments.

>PKJ

Tom Cervo

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 10:14:43 AM4/14/04
to
>Yes it does matter in the eyes of the Church. If Kerry has referred
>to himself as "a Catholic in good standing", then he needs to stop
>doing so if he had no annulment before the marriage. That's the whole
>point of what Donahue was saying. It may not matter much to you, but
>it offends those who practice their faith to hear this nonsense going
>on.

In the eyes of the church Bernard Law is a moral teacher.
Fuck that noise, him, and the church.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 11:16:43 AM4/14/04
to
<< From: TCarr...@aol.com (T.Carr) >>


<< For every pedophile priest, there are thousands of Mother Theresa's. >>

You realize that's not much of a comeback.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 11:18:25 AM4/14/04
to
From the description here, it sounds like Kerry is a bigamist, not a polygamist
- or are there other wives I'm not reading about???

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 11:21:01 AM4/14/04
to
<< From: Quiet Desperation nos...@nospam.com >>


<< > Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans.

How come every religious person *I* meet is really left wing? >>

Certainly it's got to be pretty much tied up.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 11:21:59 AM4/14/04
to
<< From: aalu...@webtv.net >>


<< I am positive
Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist. >>

Do you even know what a polygamist is?

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 12:29:38 PM4/14/04
to

<robx...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tc9q7014hqp70qpfn...@4ax.com...

<snip>

> Yes it does matter in the eyes of the Church. If Kerry has referred
> to himself as "a Catholic in good standing", then he needs to stop
> doing so if he had no annulment before the marriage. That's the whole
> point of what Donahue was saying. It may not matter much to you, but
> it offends those who practice their faith to hear this nonsense going
> on.

So I assume those who are not offended by "this nonsense" do not practice
their faith? Or are they practicing it better than those who are offended?

TR


robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 1:37:52 PM4/14/04
to

Thank you for taking the typical Internet tact of not responding to
the point and attacking instead.

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2004, 1:40:01 PM4/14/04
to

If one can not follow even the most basic tenets of their faith, they
are not practicing.

PkJ0891

unread,
Apr 15, 2004, 2:15:50 AM4/15/04
to
In article <tc9q7014hqp70qpfn...@4ax.com>, "robx...@nowhere.com"
<robx...@nowhere.com> writes:

If you're predisposed to dislike Kerry, or subscribe to Mel Gibson's version of
Catholicism, I suppose so. But clearly, there is another view within the
church:

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1998/feature1.asp

From: Understanding Annulments

It should be noted that divorced Catholics are not excommunicated from the
Church. They are considered Catholics in good standing and they have the right
to receive holy Communion as long as they have not entered an uncanonical
marriage.

The only way a divorced Catholic can remarry lawfully in the Church is by
obtaining a Church annulment.

(snip)

Pope John Paul II in his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio has
forbidden them to receive the Eucharist if they marry invalidly. Many of them
receive anyway, believing that their second marriage is not a sin but a
blessing.

This civil marriage violates the strict letter of the law, but freedom of
conscience comes into play here. The right to marry is a natural-law right, and
this right must be weighed against the doubt about the validity of the first
marriage. A hateful, abusive husband is probably a psychologically damaged
human being, whether we can prove his personality disorder or not.

It is a delicate issue, but very few priests would turn anyone away from
receiving the Eucharist. The burden is on the person to do what he or she
thinks is right.

A Catholic is bound to form his or her conscience according to the teaching of
the magisterium, which is the Church’s highest teaching authority. What does
this mean exactly?

Theologian and scholar Father Avery Dulles, S.J., in a talk given at a 1991
workshop for members of the hierarchy from all over North America—an assembly
which included cardinals, archbishops and bishops—explained the relationship
between conscience and the magisterium in this way:

"There is no perfect identity between conscience and the magisterium of the
Church. Conscience is an interior, not an outer, voice....The magisterium
fulfills the aspirations of conscience by enabling it to find the moral good at
which it aims....For members of the Church, the magisterium is one, but only
one, informant of conscience" (Proceedings of the Tenth Bishops’ Workshop,
Dallas, Texas).

I was on the same program and I observed that there was no objection to this
statement. This means that an informed conscience is not always a conformed
conscience. The Church urges us to strive for conformity, but this is not
always possible.

There is a great mystery here, but the Church upholds freedom of conscience to
the extent that, even if a person is in error, he or she must obey an informed
conscience. When it is informed, outsiders should respect the person’s
conscience even if they disagree with it.


PKJ

Tom Cervo

unread,
Apr 15, 2004, 10:24:11 AM4/15/04
to
>>In a legal sense only, but you are most definitely still married to
>>your first wife in the eyes of the Church, thus ineligible for the
>>sacraments.
>
>If you're predisposed to dislike Kerry, or subscribe to Mel Gibson's version
>of
>Catholicism, I suppose so. But clearly, there is another view within the
>church:
>
>http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1998/feature1.asp
>

It's a bit like the 2000 election. The right wing owns the supreme court--or
the Pope--and relies on them to stay conservative. But the Pope is practically
anamatronic, and a new election will happen soon, and no amount of fixing will
guarantee a conservative pope. Nor is there any guarantee that he will have the
charisma of the last one.
Donohue is preaching to a generation of Catholics whose average age is 59, and
this institution is perilously dependent on money from the pews to maintain
itself, and still waiting for the worst about the child-sex abuse to come out.
It's like the British monarchy. Once the Queen Mother went, only Elizabeth is
left. When she passes, and the generation that grew up with her passes, look
for the monarchy to be downsized to the level of Sweden, and the Commonwealth
to go republican.

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 15, 2004, 8:08:20 PM4/15/04
to

I suspect a great many people lose the "informed" part in informed
conscience. There's actual work that needs to be done to inform your
conscience, not just what you want. If you look at Kerry's voting
record, it's clear that he's the modern-day "cafeteria Catholic" or
Catholic in name only. I note that your cite does support my
contention that remarriage without annulment would make one a Catholic
not in good standing in the eyes of the Church.

>
>
>PKJ

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 15, 2004, 8:10:35 PM4/15/04
to
On 15 Apr 2004 14:24:11 GMT, tomc...@aol.com (Tom Cervo) wrote:

>>>In a legal sense only, but you are most definitely still married to
>>>your first wife in the eyes of the Church, thus ineligible for the
>>>sacraments.
>>
>>If you're predisposed to dislike Kerry, or subscribe to Mel Gibson's version
>>of
>>Catholicism, I suppose so. But clearly, there is another view within the
>>church:
>>
>>http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1998/feature1.asp
>>
>
>It's a bit like the 2000 election. The right wing owns the supreme court--or
>the Pope--and relies on them to stay conservative

Right. That's why abortion on demand continues without limitations.


PkJ0891

unread,
Apr 16, 2004, 12:54:39 AM4/16/04
to
In article <0b7u709a1tjv142v0...@4ax.com>, "robx...@nowhere.com"
<robx...@nowhere.com> writes:

>I suspect a great many people lose the "informed" part in informed
>conscience. There's actual work that needs to be done to inform your
>conscience, not just what you want.

No doubt, but that's not for you to decide, per church doctrine. You're free
to dislike or to disapprove of Kerry on any number of levels, but accusing him
of not being in good standing doesn't hold up. Particularly since neither
Kerry nor Julia has come forward to confirm or deny the annulment. Given how
apparently angry and hurt Julia was, I'd think she would've spoken up had the
annulment been denied, but until one of them tells us, we don't know for sure.

I note that your cite does support my
>contention that remarriage without annulment would make one a Catholic
>not in good standing in the eyes of the Church.

Since I try to avoid being intellectually dishonest, I deliberately did not
snip out the section that supports your contention. The problem is, the rest
of the article makes it clear that the subject isn't quite as black and white
as you'd like, and that my memory of Catholic dogma I've picked up from my
Catholic friends is pretty good. The last paragraph of the article I cited . .
.

<< There is a great mystery here, but the Church upholds freedom of conscience
to the extent that, even if a person is in error, he or she must obey an
informed conscience. When it is informed, outsiders should respect the
person’s conscience even if they disagree with it. >>

. . . indicates that Kerry's second marriage is not supposed to be the subject
of debate. It ultimately falls on him to make the choice, and "outsiders",
even assuming they know for sure that he did not receive an annulment, should
stay out of it. And since, AFAIK, there are two critical facts missing, I
don't understand why anyone thinks it's okay to pass judgment. What happened
to the disagree-but-respect part?

But then, I don't think politicans' personal lives are up for grabs, unless
their private lives contradict their public statements and policies. I know
that's not the prevailing view (unfortunately), but I really hate it when this
personal stuff gets thrown into the political arena.
PKJ

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2004, 7:49:48 AM4/16/04
to
On 16 Apr 2004 04:54:39 GMT, pkj...@aol.com (PkJ0891) wrote:

>In article <0b7u709a1tjv142v0...@4ax.com>, "robx...@nowhere.com"
><robx...@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>>I suspect a great many people lose the "informed" part in informed
>>conscience. There's actual work that needs to be done to inform your
>>conscience, not just what you want.
>
>No doubt, but that's not for you to decide, per church doctrine. You're free
>to dislike or to disapprove of Kerry on any number of levels, but accusing him
>of not being in good standing doesn't hold up.

In the eyes of the church, he's not. Period. The informed conscience
is another matter. You're attempting to confuse the two.

> Particularly since neither
>Kerry nor Julia has come forward to confirm or deny the annulment. Given how
>apparently angry and hurt Julia was, I'd think she would've spoken up had the
>annulment been denied, but until one of them tells us, we don't know for sure.

This matter could have been easily put to bed by Kerry simply stating
he got an annulment before remarriage. I've seen no such statement.

>
>I note that your cite does support my
>>contention that remarriage without annulment would make one a Catholic
>>not in good standing in the eyes of the Church.
>
>Since I try to avoid being intellectually dishonest, I deliberately did not
>snip out the section that supports your contention. The problem is, the rest
>of the article makes it clear that the subject isn't quite as black and white
>as you'd like, and that my memory of Catholic dogma I've picked up from my
>Catholic friends is pretty good. The last paragraph of the article I cited . .
>.
>
><< There is a great mystery here, but the Church upholds freedom of conscience
>to the extent that, even if a person is in error, he or she must obey an
>informed conscience. When it is informed, outsiders should respect the
>person’s conscience even if they disagree with it. >>
>
> . . . indicates that Kerry's second marriage is not supposed to be the subject
>of debate. It ultimately falls on him to make the choice, and "outsiders",
>even assuming they know for sure that he did not receive an annulment, should
>stay out of it. And since, AFAIK, there are two critical facts missing, I
>don't understand why anyone thinks it's okay to pass judgment. What happened
>to the disagree-but-respect part?

An informed conscience will dictate what the person is morally
obligated to do. It does not redirect the Church to accept something
contrary to its beliefs.

>
>But then, I don't think politicans' personal lives are up for grabs, unless
>their private lives contradict their public statements and policies. I know
>that's not the prevailing view (unfortunately), but I really hate it when this
>personal stuff gets thrown into the political arena.
>PKJ

It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
the discussion. His voting record and his unwillingness to clear up
this annulment confusion makes it legitimate discussion.


IAPW

unread,
Apr 16, 2004, 10:00:12 AM4/16/04
to
In article <omhv7050ig7q524r6...@4ax.com>,

robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
>the discussion.

Since he never said it, you're simply lying.

>His voting record and his unwillingness to clear up
>this annulment confusion makes it legitimate discussion.

What is truly a legitimate discussion is why you're such a liar.

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 18, 2004, 6:46:29 PM4/18/04
to
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:00:12 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>In article <omhv7050ig7q524r6...@4ax.com>,
>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
>>the discussion.
>
>Since he never said it, you're simply lying.

Have you ever thought of looking before insulting?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/12/kerry_celebrates_with_communion/

"Kerry also divorced his first wife, raising further questions about
his eligibility to receive Communion, but an aide told the Globe in
2000 that Kerry had that marriage annulled. Last week, a Kerry aide
reiterated that "the senator is in good standing with his church."

Note the word reiterated as in "said before".

IAPW

unread,
Apr 18, 2004, 7:15:06 PM4/18/04
to
In article <561680hjvs0p0vhf7...@4ax.com>,

robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:00:12 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <omhv7050ig7q524r6...@4ax.com>,
>>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
>>>the discussion.
>>
>>Since he never said it, you're simply lying.
>
>Have you ever thought of looking before insulting?

Have you ever learned English?

>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/12/kerry_celebrates_with_communion/
>
>"Kerry also divorced his first wife, raising further questions about
>his eligibility to receive Communion, but an aide told the Globe in
>2000 that Kerry had that marriage annulled. Last week, a Kerry aide
>reiterated that "the senator is in good standing with his church."
>
>Note the word reiterated as in "said before".

Kerry aide != Kerry. Duh.

PKJ

unread,
Apr 18, 2004, 11:25:50 PM4/18/04
to
I've been trying to post this since Friday afternoon, and AOL just
won't let me post to RAT. Until I figure out what the heck's going on
with AOL, I'll post from Google. See below for my comment about
Kerry's assertion about "good standing".

Subject:Re: Bill Donahue - Kerry is a polygamist
From: PkJ0891
To: rec.arts.tv
Date: 4/16/2004

In article <omhv7050ig7q524r6...@4ax.com>,
"robx...@nowhere.com" <robx...@nowhere.com> writes:

>On 16 Apr 2004 04:54:39 GMT, pkj...@aol.com (PkJ0891) wrote:
>
>>In article <0b7u709a1tjv142v0...@4ax.com>,
>"robx...@nowhere.com"
>><robx...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>I suspect a great many people lose the "informed" part in informed
>>>conscience. There's actual work that needs to be done to inform
your
>>>conscience, not just what you want.
>>
>>No doubt, but that's not for you to decide, per church doctrine.
You're
>free
>>to dislike or to disapprove of Kerry on any number of levels, but
accusing
>him
>>of not being in good standing doesn't hold up.
>
>In the eyes of the church, he's not. Period. The informed
conscience
>is another matter. You're attempting to confuse the two.

To recap: What I said was, your argument doesn't hold up because you
have no way of knowing if Kerry was granted an annulment. You
continue to assert that Kerry was not granted an annulment. You don't
know that.

>> Particularly since neither
>>Kerry nor Julia has come forward to confirm or deny the annulment.
Given
>how
>>apparently angry and hurt Julia was, I'd think she would've spoken
up had
>the
>>annulment been denied, but until one of them tells us, we don't know
for
>sure.
>
>This matter could have been easily put to bed by Kerry simply stating
>he got an annulment before remarriage. I've seen no such statement.

If Kerry confirmed the annulment, he'd be confirming the extent of
Julia's mental problems. That would be an incredibly harsh thing to
do to the mother of his kids. Further, it would open him up to
charges of using very private, personal information for political
gain. It's a no-win situation.

See, this is another reason why religion should stay out of politics.
Nobody wins when you drag this stuff into public discourse.

If the church decides to excommunicate Kerry because he did not
receive an annulment, fine. I wasn't talking about the church. I was
talking about you and other lay people who are supposed to
respectfully disagree with his decision to receive Communion,
especially because you don't have the facts.

>>But then, I don't think politicans' personal lives are up for grabs,
unless
>>their private lives contradict their public statements and policies.
I know
>>that's not the prevailing view (unfortunately), but I really hate it
when
>this
>>personal stuff gets thrown into the political arena.
>

>It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
>the discussion. His voting record and his unwillingness to clear up
>this annulment confusion makes it legitimate discussion.

The only direct reference I can find is an article in the Providence
Journal dated 3/23/2003, in which he is questioned about his
annulment:

"Kerry said he is a church-going Catholic today. He will not say
whether he obtained an annulment of his first marriage, to Julia
Thorne, which ended after 12 years in 1988. Kerry did say, however,
that his "current marriage is in good graces with the church." He was
married in 1995 to Teresa Heinz, an outspoken -- sometimes very
outspoken -- liberal activist who was the widow of Sen. John Heinz, a
Pennsylvania Republican and heir to the ketchup fortune."

Kerry didn't raise the issue. He's been pushed into responding to a
question that never should have been asked, one which (I've found
through searching) has apparently and inappropriately been asked many
times over the years. It's like asking a candidate to reveal with
contents of his divorce proceeeding, because, as I said before, if he
confirms it, he's revealing the seriousness of Julia's psychiatric
illness.

His voting record is legitimate. His annulment, or lack thereof, is
not.

Tom Cervo

unread,
Apr 18, 2004, 11:38:30 PM4/18/04
to
>Kerry didn't raise the issue. He's been pushed into responding to a
>question that never should have been asked, one which (I've found
>through searching) has apparently and inappropriately been asked many
>times over the years.

Kind of stupid too, since two can play at the game, and there's plenty of
questions the Bushes would rather not answer about their private lives--like
the boy Laura killed.

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2004, 7:39:18 AM4/19/04
to
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:15:06 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>In article <561680hjvs0p0vhf7...@4ax.com>,
>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:00:12 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <omhv7050ig7q524r6...@4ax.com>,
>>>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
>>>>the discussion.
>>>
>>>Since he never said it, you're simply lying.
>>
>>Have you ever thought of looking before insulting?
>
>Have you ever learned English?

I guess I was right.

>
>>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/12/kerry_celebrates_with_communion/
>>
>>"Kerry also divorced his first wife, raising further questions about
>>his eligibility to receive Communion, but an aide told the Globe in
>>2000 that Kerry had that marriage annulled. Last week, a Kerry aide
>>reiterated that "the senator is in good standing with his church."
>>
>>Note the word reiterated as in "said before".
>
>Kerry aide != Kerry. Duh.
>

A Kerry aide speaks for Kerry. What the aide said is Kerry's
position, unless you have proof to the contrary.


robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2004, 7:56:09 AM4/19/04
to

The only thing I've ever seen officially is that he applied for an
annulment. That smells to me.

>
>>> Particularly since neither
>>>Kerry nor Julia has come forward to confirm or deny the annulment.
>Given
>>how
>>>apparently angry and hurt Julia was, I'd think she would've spoken
>up had
>>the
>>>annulment been denied, but until one of them tells us, we don't know
>for
>>sure.
>>
>>This matter could have been easily put to bed by Kerry simply stating
>>he got an annulment before remarriage. I've seen no such statement.
>
>If Kerry confirmed the annulment, he'd be confirming the extent of
>Julia's mental problems. That would be an incredibly harsh thing to
>do to the mother of his kids. Further, it would open him up to
>charges of using very private, personal information for political
>gain. It's a no-win situation.

What?? He got an annulment but he can't confirm the annulment?
Surely he could have a Church spokesperson confirm an annulment was
granted without giving the grounds.

>
>See, this is another reason why religion should stay out of politics.
>Nobody wins when you drag this stuff into public discourse.

It's interesting how religion is dragged into politics when it suits
the interests of those on the left. Could a conservative Catholic be
confirmed as a Bush court nominee?

I don't believe that the Church would excommunicate Kerry over not
receiving an annulment. He may be doing so on a spiritual level, but
I doubt that would happen on an offical level. I do have issues with
those who would be our public officials throwing around the term
"Catholic in good standing" when their very positions and apparently
their adherence to Catholic docrtrine is questionable. I have further
issues that their response, when questioned about these things, seems
to be "bug off".

>
>>>But then, I don't think politicans' personal lives are up for grabs,
>unless
>>>their private lives contradict their public statements and policies.
> I know
>>>that's not the prevailing view (unfortunately), but I really hate it
>when
>>this
>>>personal stuff gets thrown into the political arena.
>>
>>It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
>>the discussion. His voting record and his unwillingness to clear up
>>this annulment confusion makes it legitimate discussion.
>
>The only direct reference I can find is an article in the Providence
>Journal dated 3/23/2003, in which he is questioned about his
>annulment:
>
>"Kerry said he is a church-going Catholic today. He will not say
>whether he obtained an annulment of his first marriage, to Julia
>Thorne, which ended after 12 years in 1988. Kerry did say, however,
>that his "current marriage is in good graces with the church." He was
>married in 1995 to Teresa Heinz, an outspoken -- sometimes very
>outspoken -- liberal activist who was the widow of Sen. John Heinz, a
>Pennsylvania Republican and heir to the ketchup fortune."

See the message I posted earlier in the thread.

>
>Kerry didn't raise the issue. He's been pushed into responding to a
>question that never should have been asked, one which (I've found
>through searching) has apparently and inappropriately been asked many
>times over the years. It's like asking a candidate to reveal with
>contents of his divorce proceeeding, because, as I said before, if he
>confirms it, he's revealing the seriousness of Julia's psychiatric
>illness.

Nonsense, an official confirmation of an annulment would silence all
critics. The annulment decree would not be needed. Kerry's response
was a non-answer.

>
>His voting record is legitimate. His annulment, or lack thereof, is
>not.

It is to those who believe in the Catholic faith.

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2004, 7:57:05 AM4/19/04
to

Don't hang around alt.fan.rush.limbaugh much I guess. That one's been
done to death.


IAPW

unread,
Apr 19, 2004, 10:14:33 AM4/19/04
to
In article <4fe7801m1bj24ij2j...@4ax.com>,

robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:15:06 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <561680hjvs0p0vhf7...@4ax.com>,
>>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:00:12 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <omhv7050ig7q524r6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
>>>>>the discussion.
>>>>
>>>>Since he never said it, you're simply lying.
>>>
>>>Have you ever thought of looking before insulting?
>>
>>Have you ever learned English?
>
>I guess I was right.

You are right that you don't understand English.

>>
>>>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/12/kerry_celebrates_with_communion/
>>>
>>>"Kerry also divorced his first wife, raising further questions about
>>>his eligibility to receive Communion, but an aide told the Globe in
>>>2000 that Kerry had that marriage annulled. Last week, a Kerry aide
>>>reiterated that "the senator is in good standing with his church."
>>>
>>>Note the word reiterated as in "said before".
>>
>>Kerry aide != Kerry. Duh.
>>
>
>A Kerry aide speaks for Kerry.

Amazingly enough, people typically speak for themselves and not for
others. If you get your ass off your computer and got a real life you
might even realize that.

>What the aide said is Kerry's
>position, unless you have proof to the contrary.

What you just said makes you a moron, unless you have proof to the
contrary.


robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2004, 1:26:51 PM4/19/04
to
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:14:33 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>In article <4fe7801m1bj24ij2j...@4ax.com>,
>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:15:06 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <561680hjvs0p0vhf7...@4ax.com>,
>>>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:00:12 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <omhv7050ig7q524r6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
>>>>>>the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since he never said it, you're simply lying.
>>>>
>>>>Have you ever thought of looking before insulting?
>>>
>>>Have you ever learned English?
>>
>>I guess I was right.
>
>You are right that you don't understand English.

Nope. Straight to the insults. I'm not surprised.

>
>>>
>>>>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/12/kerry_celebrates_with_communion/
>>>>
>>>>"Kerry also divorced his first wife, raising further questions about
>>>>his eligibility to receive Communion, but an aide told the Globe in
>>>>2000 that Kerry had that marriage annulled. Last week, a Kerry aide
>>>>reiterated that "the senator is in good standing with his church."
>>>>
>>>>Note the word reiterated as in "said before".
>>>
>>>Kerry aide != Kerry. Duh.
>>>
>>
>>A Kerry aide speaks for Kerry.
>
>Amazingly enough, people typically speak for themselves and not for
>others. If you get your ass off your computer and got a real life you
>might even realize that.

Spokespersons speak for themselves and not the people for whom they
work? Very interesting thought process and thank you for another
childish insult. How old are you again?

>
>>What the aide said is Kerry's
>>position, unless you have proof to the contrary.
>
>What you just said makes you a moron, unless you have proof to the
>contrary.

The lack of ability to respond logically to a point puts you at about
ten to twelve years of age.

Have a wonderful day!

IAPW

unread,
Apr 19, 2004, 2:49:54 PM4/19/04
to
In article <gf288014gqbmoo3k6...@4ax.com>,

robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:14:33 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4fe7801m1bj24ij2j...@4ax.com>,
>>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:15:06 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <561680hjvs0p0vhf7...@4ax.com>,
>>>>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:00:12 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <omhv7050ig7q524r6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>robx...@nowhere.com <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's Kerry who injected the "Catholic in good standing" remark into
>>>>>>>the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since he never said it, you're simply lying.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you ever thought of looking before insulting?
>>>>
>>>>Have you ever learned English?
>>>
>>>I guess I was right.
>>
>>You are right that you don't understand English.
>
>Nope. Straight to the insults. I'm not surprised.

You still don't understand English.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/12/kerry_celebrates_with_communion/
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kerry also divorced his first wife, raising further questions about
>>>>>his eligibility to receive Communion, but an aide told the Globe in
>>>>>2000 that Kerry had that marriage annulled. Last week, a Kerry aide
>>>>>reiterated that "the senator is in good standing with his church."
>>>>>
>>>>>Note the word reiterated as in "said before".
>>>>
>>>>Kerry aide != Kerry. Duh.
>>>>
>>>
>>>A Kerry aide speaks for Kerry.
>>
>>Amazingly enough, people typically speak for themselves and not for
>>others. If you get your ass off your computer and got a real life you
>>might even realize that.
>
>Spokespersons speak for themselves and not the people for whom they
>work? Very interesting thought process and thank you for another
>childish insult. How old are you again?

The article said "aide" not spokesperson. Aide != spokesperson.


>>>What the aide said is Kerry's
>>>position, unless you have proof to the contrary.
>>
>>What you just said makes you a moron, unless you have proof to the
>>contrary.
>
>The lack of ability to respond logically to a point puts you at about
>ten to twelve years of age.

The article said "aide" not spokesperson. Aide != spokesperson.


robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2004, 6:17:57 PM4/19/04
to
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:49:54 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

Has Kerry contradicted the statement or said that the aide was not
speaking speaking for him?

>
>
>>>>What the aide said is Kerry's
>>>>position, unless you have proof to the contrary.
>>>
>>>What you just said makes you a moron, unless you have proof to the
>>>contrary.
>>
>>The lack of ability to respond logically to a point puts you at about
>>ten to twelve years of age.
>
>The article said "aide" not spokesperson. Aide != spokesperson.

Do you have any evidence that the statement was contrary to Kerry's
position or not? Try not to play wordgames and make an actual point.
Kerry would most certainly speak up if one of his people said
something contrary to one of his positions.

IAPW

unread,
Apr 19, 2004, 6:57:05 PM4/19/04
to
In article <9ij8809bgqtgus4bq...@4ax.com>,

Why should he? He also hasn't responded to allegations that he beats his
wife either.

>>>>>What the aide said is Kerry's
>>>>>position, unless you have proof to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>What you just said makes you a moron, unless you have proof to the
>>>>contrary.
>>>
>>>The lack of ability to respond logically to a point puts you at about
>>>ten to twelve years of age.
>>
>>The article said "aide" not spokesperson. Aide != spokesperson.
>
>Do you have any evidence that the statement was contrary to Kerry's
>position or not? Try not to play wordgames and make an actual point.
>Kerry would most certainly speak up if one of his people said
>something contrary to one of his positions.

The more likely explanation is that Kerry has decided not to respond to
every allegation made by the quacks and the whackos.

PKJ

unread,
Apr 20, 2004, 1:27:01 AM4/20/04
to
In article <hke78013ncut1o7ta...@4ax.com>,
"robx...@nowhere.com" <robx...@nowhere.com> writes:

I've continued looking, and I found this yadda-yadda-yadda on a blog
with a major agenda:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2004_03_07_counterspin_archive.html#107912057926699944

MORE SLEAZE: The sickening, scumbags, and "crooked liars" of the
rightwing attack establishment are also going after John Kerry over
the breakup of his first marriage to Julia Thorne. One of the "crooked
liars" calls it "John Kerry's New Gingrich Problem." They argue that
Kerry dumped his wife due to political ambition, in the midst of her
depression.

The truth, of course, is 180 degrees from what the "crooked liars" say
it is.

According to Julia, herself:

[t]wo years after her first suicide attempt (in 1980), she separated
from Kerry "because I had to be on my own. I had to force myself to be
my own person, to call my own shots. My choice was not to do this
within my marriage. It was very hurtful to John. But at that time I
was not thinking rationally. I was all emotion."

March 8, 1994, Boston Globe. Kerry did not actually divorce his wife
until 1988, although they remained separated for that entire period.

Later, he sought an annulment so he could re-marry Teresa Heinz. Ms.
Thorne thought it was "disrespectful," but still supported her
husband, and did not contest it. She believed it did not comport with
Church doctrine.

UPDATE: More details from the Washington Times:

"Julia Thorne says she sees no need to contest her ex-husband's
request because she does not recognize the validity of the church
proceeding.

Mrs. Thorne says she still supports Mr. Kerry politically and is glad
he is happy in his new marriage to Heinz food fortune heiress Teresa
Heinz.

But Mrs. Thorne, an Episcopalian, said the church's approach to the
issue "was disrespectful to me . . . and devoid of any sense of the
humanity of what this means to me and the children."

Washington Times, April 11, 1997.
So, she called the CHURCH "disrespectful," not John Kerry.

UPDATE: Even more details from an April 10, 1997 story in the Patriot
Ledger:

"[Julia] Thorne said she does not think she needs to contest Kerry's
request for an annulment because she does not recognize the validity
of the proceeding, and wants to allow Kerry and Heinz to participate
fully in church practices."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, I went looking for the original article from the Patriot Ledger.
I don't know if the archive was wacky, or if I did something wrong,
but I couldn't pull up the 1997 article. The latest date I could get
was 2000. If you can grab this article, please post it.

It sounds as though Julia didn't contest the annulment, and that, in
fact, it was granted. How else to explain the "participate fully in
church practices" comment?

Also, Andrew Sullivan asserts that the annulment was granted, but I
think it's from a weird source: The Washington Blade.

>>>> Particularly since neither
>>>>Kerry nor Julia has come forward to confirm or deny the annulment.
>>Given
>>>how
>>>>apparently angry and hurt Julia was, I'd think she would've spoken
>>up had
>>>the
>>>>annulment been denied, but until one of them tells us, we don't
know
>>for
>>>sure.
>>>
>>>This matter could have been easily put to bed by Kerry simply
stating
>>>he got an annulment before remarriage. I've seen no such
statement.
>>
>>If Kerry confirmed the annulment, he'd be confirming the extent of
>>Julia's mental problems. That would be an incredibly harsh thing to
>>do to the mother of his kids. Further, it would open him up to
>>charges of using very private, personal information for political
>>gain. It's a no-win situation.
>
>What?? He got an annulment but he can't confirm the annulment?
>Surely he could have a Church spokesperson confirm an annulment was
>granted without giving the grounds.

Hey, I had no freakin' idea about any of this until the thread began,
and on my first go-round of searching, I discovered that the first
Mrs. Kerry had major psychiatric problems. Most people are able to
put two + two together, but if they can't, surely the press would be
happy to help.

The church would grant an annulment based on her history. I looked it
up:

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1998/feature1.asp#F3

3) Psychic incapacity. If a person is incapable of fulfilling the
burdens and obligations of marriage, the marriage can be annulled. You
cannot make a promise to do something you are incapable of doing. For
instance, a paranoid schizophrenic may have behaved normally at the
time of the wedding, but later, when the illness becomes full-blown,
the marriage falls apart.

It is only because of our new knowledge in the field of psychology
that we have come to understand that a latent condition can affect the
consent retroactively. Some of these cases involve persons who are
psychotic, but not all. A serious neurosis can also affect the
capacity to marry.

These cases are becoming more common. Neil Clark Warren, a
psychologist and marriage counselor, estimates that in 75 percent of
all divorces at least one party is emotionally unhealthy. In countries
where there is a vigorous drug subculture, Warren's claim is not an
exaggeration.

Forty years ago people were told, "You made your bed, now lie in it."
This is too simplistic a rule when it comes to mental or emotional
illness. We learned this new jurisprudence from the Sacred Roman Rota.
Decisions of the Rota are only made available (with names deleted) 10
years after they are issued.

When I was the judicial vicar in the Diocese of Paterson in the early
70's, I began reading the decisions of the Roman Rota on a regular
basis and was amazed to find that they were granting annulments to
people who were extremely immature. I also found that the Rota had
been granting annulments in cases involving psychotics and neurotics
as well. The American Church was 10 years behind in its jurisprudence.

>>See, this is another reason why religion should stay out of
politics.
>>Nobody wins when you drag this stuff into public discourse.
>
>It's interesting how religion is dragged into politics when it suits
>the interests of those on the left. Could a conservative Catholic be
>confirmed as a Bush court nominee?

Nobody should be confirmed if religious beliefs would conflict with
the law. A Quaker shouldn't be confirmed, since Quaker beliefs would
prohibit carrying out the death penalty. I think the death penalty is
terrible, but I don't want a judge's religion to get in the way of
enforcing the law. Any law, even one I hate.

>>Kerry didn't raise the issue. He's been pushed into responding to a
>>question that never should have been asked, one which (I've found
>>through searching) has apparently and inappropriately been asked
many
>>times over the years. It's like asking a candidate to reveal with
>>contents of his divorce proceeeding, because, as I said before, if
he
>>confirms it, he's revealing the seriousness of Julia's psychiatric
>>illness.
>
>Nonsense, an official confirmation of an annulment would silence all
>critics. The annulment decree would not be needed. Kerry's response
>was a non-answer.

See above. Only those not paying attention would not know the grounds
for the annulment, and they would be handed a clue pretty quickly by
the press. I did a ten-minute search and was able to determine the
grounds. If Kerry confirmed the annulment, how long do you think it'd
take anyone with a computer to posit the grounds. It's a no-brainer.

>>His voting record is legitimate. His annulment, or lack thereof, is
>>not.
>
>It is to those who believe in the Catholic faith.

And that's why religion does not belong in the public debate.

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 20, 2004, 8:10:07 AM4/20/04
to
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:57:05 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

Certainly if someone who was working for him was saying things about
his life that were incorrect, he would correct them.

>
>>>>>>What the aide said is Kerry's
>>>>>>position, unless you have proof to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>>What you just said makes you a moron, unless you have proof to the
>>>>>contrary.
>>>>
>>>>The lack of ability to respond logically to a point puts you at about
>>>>ten to twelve years of age.
>>>
>>>The article said "aide" not spokesperson. Aide != spokesperson.
>>
>>Do you have any evidence that the statement was contrary to Kerry's
>>position or not? Try not to play wordgames and make an actual point.
>>Kerry would most certainly speak up if one of his people said
>>something contrary to one of his positions.
>
>The more likely explanation is that Kerry has decided not to respond to
>every allegation made by the quacks and the whackos.

The even more likely explanation is that he used his "aide" to respond
so that he wouldn't have to.


robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 20, 2004, 8:19:54 AM4/20/04
to

You should know from your research that whether or not a annulment
petition is challenged has little to do with if it is granted.

>
>Also, Andrew Sullivan asserts that the annulment was granted, but I
>think it's from a weird source: The Washington Blade.

Why won't Kerry himself clear it up?

If the information is so readily available about his wife's
"disorder", then why not answer the question and supply an annulment
decree. Why would Kerry protect something that is already supposedly
well-known?

>
>>>His voting record is legitimate. His annulment, or lack thereof, is
>>>not.
>>
>>It is to those who believe in the Catholic faith.
>
>And that's why religion does not belong in the public debate.

Then maybe he shouldn't use Church as a photo-op.

IAPW

unread,
Apr 20, 2004, 9:44:58 AM4/20/04
to
In article <3h4a801egntcb9rse...@4ax.com>,

The aide was merely offering his opinion. John Kerry might have more
respect for other people than you and not "correct" other people's
opinions merely because he disagrees with them.

>>>>>>>What the aide said is Kerry's
>>>>>>>position, unless you have proof to the contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What you just said makes you a moron, unless you have proof to the
>>>>>>contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>>The lack of ability to respond logically to a point puts you at about
>>>>>ten to twelve years of age.
>>>>
>>>>The article said "aide" not spokesperson. Aide != spokesperson.
>>>
>>>Do you have any evidence that the statement was contrary to Kerry's
>>>position or not? Try not to play wordgames and make an actual point.
>>>Kerry would most certainly speak up if one of his people said
>>>something contrary to one of his positions.
>>
>>The more likely explanation is that Kerry has decided not to respond to
>>every allegation made by the quacks and the whackos.
>
>The even more likely explanation is that he used his "aide" to respond
>so that he wouldn't have to.

Wrong, my explanation is much much more likely than yours considering that
he already gave a standard "separation of church and state in America"
response in the exact same article you referenced making your pretense he
wouldn't have to respond specious.

PKJ

unread,
Apr 20, 2004, 5:39:55 PM4/20/04
to
"robx...@nowhere.com" <robx...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<7t4a80lvat9ij3fip...@4ax.com>...


> Then maybe he shouldn't use Church as a photo-op.

You obviously hate Kerry so much that there's no point in discussing this further.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Apr 20, 2004, 8:15:19 PM4/20/04
to
<< From: pkj...@aol.com (PKJ) >>


<< > Then maybe he shouldn't use Church as a photo-op.

You obviously hate Kerry so much that there's no point in discussing this
further. >>

He's got a completely valid point. Kerry's the one running on the grounds of
him being a devout faithful practicing Catholic. If it turns out he's lying
about this, he brought it into the mix.

PKJ

unread,
Apr 21, 2004, 3:49:22 AM4/21/04
to
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote in message news:<20040420201519...@mb-m03.aol.com>...

What the hell are you talking about? Kerry repeatedly stated that
religion should be separate from politics. He didn't issue campaign
statements about his religion and divorce, until it was thrust upon
him, by people who have nothing better to do than to obsess over a
candidate's private life.

At what point should a politician tell the press and his antagonists
to take a freakin' hike? I'm all for the Fuck You School of intrusive
investigations, but that doesn't apparently play with Americans who
think a candidate's religious practices and divorce proceedings are
fair game during an election cycle. Frankly, it's all bullshit.
Like, I'm going to obsess over Bush43's drug and alcohol past - from a
decade ago. Who cares?

Just tell me what you believe about current issues and then present
policies to implement your beliefs. The rest of the stuff is
background noise, which anyone with a brain will ignore.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Apr 21, 2004, 9:13:03 AM4/21/04
to
<< From: pkj...@aol.com (PKJ) >>


<< Kerry repeatedly stated that
religion should be separate from politics. >>

So? He's using it as a platform plank whether you like to admit it or not.

<< Just tell me what you believe about current issues and then present
policies to implement your beliefs. The rest of the stuff is
background noise, which anyone with a brain will ignore. >>

You *are* kidding?

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 6:18:43 PM4/25/04
to


I don't hate anyone. You mistake dislike of hypocrisy and dishonesty
as hatred.

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 6:24:56 PM4/25/04
to
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:44:58 +0000 (UTC), IAPW <lk...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

Read the original statement again. It was no opinion. It was to be
taken as a statement of fact. If Kerry is an honorable person and
someone makes an obviously incorrect statement about his own life, he
should correct it. It has nothing to do with respect; it's about
honesty.

>
>>>>>>>>What the aide said is Kerry's
>>>>>>>>position, unless you have proof to the contrary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What you just said makes you a moron, unless you have proof to the
>>>>>>>contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The lack of ability to respond logically to a point puts you at about
>>>>>>ten to twelve years of age.
>>>>>
>>>>>The article said "aide" not spokesperson. Aide != spokesperson.
>>>>
>>>>Do you have any evidence that the statement was contrary to Kerry's
>>>>position or not? Try not to play wordgames and make an actual point.
>>>>Kerry would most certainly speak up if one of his people said
>>>>something contrary to one of his positions.
>>>
>>>The more likely explanation is that Kerry has decided not to respond to
>>>every allegation made by the quacks and the whackos.
>>
>>The even more likely explanation is that he used his "aide" to respond
>>so that he wouldn't have to.
>
>Wrong, my explanation is much much more likely than yours considering that
>he already gave a standard "separation of church and state in America"
>response in the exact same article you referenced making your pretense he
>wouldn't have to respond specious.

It's great when you can have it both ways isn't it? He says one thing
about church and state and his "people" make the statements about the
original issue. But that seems to be the way Kerry is about things --
having things both ways.


chicagofan

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 8:09:24 PM4/25/04
to
robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>
> It's great when you can have it both ways isn't it? He says one thing
> about church and state and his "people" make the statements about the
> original issue. But that seems to be the way Kerry is about things --
> having things both ways.

OH, PLEASE... if you are a Bush supporter, you should really drop this line
now, per your fearless leader... and his RECORD.
bj

--
"I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to
take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. "

— President George W. Bush, invoking a passage from the Gospel of St.
Matthew during a speech

Crowfoot

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 2:29:32 AM4/26/04
to
In article <108okbq...@corp.supernews.com>, chicagofan
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's great when you can have it both ways isn't it? He says one thing
> > about church and state and his "people" make the statements about the
> > original issue. But that seems to be the way Kerry is about things --
> > having things both ways.
>
> OH, PLEASE... if you are a Bush supporter, you should really drop this
> line
> now, per your fearless leader... and his RECORD.
> bj
>

Don't waste your breath. Bush and his gang of thugs and his supporters
in what is laughingly known as the real world operate on the axiom
that Americans are too childish and stupid to recognize the meaning
of anything like a record, which depends on time and a sense of history
-- that is, things that happened before one woke up this morning, and
maybe not in one's own bedroom.

Unfortunately, they appear to be right.

C.
--
Crow

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 12:58:58 PM4/26/04
to
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:09:24 -0400, chicagofan <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

>robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's great when you can have it both ways isn't it? He says one thing
>> about church and state and his "people" make the statements about the
>> original issue. But that seems to be the way Kerry is about things --
>> having things both ways.
>
>OH, PLEASE... if you are a Bush supporter, you should really drop this line
>now, per your fearless leader... and his RECORD.

Do try to keep to the topic. We were talking specifically about Kerry
and his religious values or lack thereof. If you'd like to start a
separate thread about Bush, feel free, but "the other guy does it too"
is hardly a defense.

chicagofan

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 8:03:03 PM4/26/04
to
robx...@nowhere.com wrote:

Please note your comment above, that is what I responded to. As for what
you have been ranting about, most people are not concerned with how right
with GOD and the catholic church, John Kerry is. Nor you.

Your time would be better spent in your church, trying to get him thrown
out, if this concerns you this much.
bj


Tom Cervo

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 10:55:31 PM4/26/04
to
>>
>> Do try to keep to the topic. We were talking specifically about Kerry
>> and his religious values or lack thereof. If you'd like to start a
>> separate thread about Bush, feel free, but "the other guy does it too"
>> is hardly a defense.

Okay. Every poll taken says that the majority of American Catholics-80% in
some- approve of abortion in some instances, at least to save a mother's life.
Kerry's clearly among the majority of American Catholics. They don't believe
that abortion is murder--ghastly perhaps, but not murder. Neither do they
believe that birth control is a sin.

Ah, but Holy Mother Church is not a democracy, and if you don't like it, you
should leave, you might say. Very well--let them say it.

Let all the bishops, not just a couple bucking for Cardinal, proclaim that all
the married couples in their dioceses start having the children they are
preventing, or face being barred from communion. Let them lead assaults on
abortion clinics, laying down in front of the doors and being arrested in civil
disobedience, until the jails are full of clergy and Catholics.
Let's see them do that, and see who follows them.
Then they can start lecturing Kerry.

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 7:33:38 AM4/27/04
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:03:03 -0400, chicagofan <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

>robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>>chicagofan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
> >>
>>>>But that seems to be the way Kerry is about things --
>>>>having things both ways.
>>>
>>>OH, PLEASE... if you are a Bush supporter, you should really drop this line
>>>now, per your fearless leader... and his RECORD.
>>
>>
>> Do try to keep to the topic. We were talking specifically about Kerry
>> and his religious values or lack thereof. If you'd like to start a
>> separate thread about Bush, feel free, but "the other guy does it too"
>> is hardly a defense.
>
>Please note your comment above, that is what I responded to. As for what
>you have been ranting about, most people are not concerned with how right
>with GOD and the catholic church, John Kerry is. Nor you.

Any reason you snipped the relevant parts of the discussion? Your
response had nothing to do with the topic and for some reason you
tried to turn it into a "bash Bush" topic. As for whether or not
people are concerned about Kerry and the Catholic Church, you'll note
that the thread has gone on for about a week, and a similiar thread
exists in alt.fan.rush.limbaugh.


>
>Your time would be better spent in your church, trying to get him thrown
>out, if this concerns you this much.

Guess you're not one for open discussion and free speech...

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 7:39:13 AM4/27/04
to
On 27 Apr 2004 02:55:31 GMT, tomc...@aol.com (Tom Cervo) wrote:

>>>
>>> Do try to keep to the topic. We were talking specifically about Kerry
>>> and his religious values or lack thereof. If you'd like to start a
>>> separate thread about Bush, feel free, but "the other guy does it too"
>>> is hardly a defense.
>
>Okay. Every poll taken says that the majority of American Catholics-80% in
>some- approve of abortion in some instances, at least to save a mother's life.

Sources? Also the break down of saving the mother's life vs abortion
on demand?

>Kerry's clearly among the majority of American Catholics.

An avowed pro-choicer? Really?


>They don't believe
>that abortion is murder--ghastly perhaps, but not murder

Cites? You make some wonderful generalities.

>. Neither do they
>believe that birth control is a sin.
>
>Ah, but Holy Mother Church is not a democracy, and if you don't like it, you
>should leave, you might say. Very well--let them say it.
>
>Let all the bishops, not just a couple bucking for Cardinal, proclaim that all
>the married couples in their dioceses start having the children they are
>preventing, or face being barred from communion. Let them lead assaults on
>abortion clinics, laying down in front of the doors and being arrested in civil
>disobedience, until the jails are full of clergy and Catholics.
>Let's see them do that, and see who follows them.
>Then they can start lecturing Kerry.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that Kerry asserts he
is a "Catholic in good standing" yet won't confirm he had an annulment
and consistantly votes pro-choice?


chicagofan

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:14:56 PM4/28/04
to
robx...@nowhere.com wrote:

> chicagofan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>>chicagofan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But that seems to be the way Kerry is about things --
>>>>>having things both ways.
>>>>
>>>>OH, PLEASE... if you are a Bush supporter, you should really drop this line
>>>>now, per your fearless leader... and his RECORD.
>>>
>>>Do try to keep to the topic. We were talking specifically about Kerry
>>>and his religious values or lack thereof. If you'd like to start a
>>>separate thread about Bush, feel free, but "the other guy does it too"
>>>is hardly a defense.
>>
>>Please note your comment above, that is what I responded to. As for what
>>you have been ranting about, most people are not concerned with how right
>>with GOD and the catholic church, John Kerry is. Nor you.
>
> Any reason you snipped the relevant parts of the discussion? Your
> response had nothing to do with the topic and for some reason you
> tried to turn it into a "bash Bush" topic.

How dense can you be? I reduced your comments to the last line, since you
overlooked it in your previous reply apparently. When you engage in these
*generalized* swipes at Kerry's character, or honesty, you can expect a
response from someone.


> As for whether or not people are concerned about Kerry and the Catholic
> Church, you'll note that the thread has gone on for about a week, and a
> similiar thread exists in alt.fan.rush.limbaugh.

LOL... I can just imagine the stimulating conversation over there. As for
how long it has lasted here, it's only because a lot of nice, patient people
here, have tried to reason with you. [Excluding myself.]


>>Your time would be better spent in your church, trying to get him thrown
>>out, if this concerns you this much.
>
> Guess you're not one for open discussion and free speech...

Guess again... it's just that I don't share your obsession with Kerry's
religion; and if you want to *rant* from now to November, because you can't
find out about his annulment, please try to stick with the facts.
bj

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 7:48:10 AM4/29/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:14:56 -0400, chicagofan <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

>robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>> chicagofan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>>>chicagofan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
> >>>>
>>>>>>But that seems to be the way Kerry is about things --
>>>>>>having things both ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>OH, PLEASE... if you are a Bush supporter, you should really drop this line
>>>>>now, per your fearless leader... and his RECORD.
>>>>
>>>>Do try to keep to the topic. We were talking specifically about Kerry
>>>>and his religious values or lack thereof. If you'd like to start a
>>>>separate thread about Bush, feel free, but "the other guy does it too"
>>>>is hardly a defense.
>>>
>>>Please note your comment above, that is what I responded to. As for what
>>>you have been ranting about, most people are not concerned with how right
>>>with GOD and the catholic church, John Kerry is. Nor you.
>>
>> Any reason you snipped the relevant parts of the discussion? Your
>> response had nothing to do with the topic and for some reason you
>> tried to turn it into a "bash Bush" topic.
>
>How dense can you be? I reduced your comments to the last line, since you
>overlooked it in your previous reply apparently. When you engage in these
>*generalized* swipes at Kerry's character, or honesty, you can expect a
>response from someone.

Any reason you felt the need to change the thread into a bash Bush
attempt? If you can't respond to the topic at hand, why insert
yourself into the discussion?

>
>
> > As for whether or not people are concerned about Kerry and the Catholic
> > Church, you'll note that the thread has gone on for about a week, and a
> > similiar thread exists in alt.fan.rush.limbaugh.
>
>LOL... I can just imagine the stimulating conversation over there. As for
>how long it has lasted here, it's only because a lot of nice, patient people
>here, have tried to reason with you. [Excluding myself.]

Your assertion was that there was no interest in the topic, I believe.
The existence of the thread for the period of time denotes otherwise.
Your condescending attitude is so noted.

>
>
>>>Your time would be better spent in your church, trying to get him thrown
>>>out, if this concerns you this much.
>>
>> Guess you're not one for open discussion and free speech...
>
>Guess again... it's just that I don't share your obsession with Kerry's
>religion; and if you want to *rant* from now to November, because you can't
>find out about his annulment, please try to stick with the facts.

Read the thread, I have stuck to the facts. Oh that's right, you just
jumped in with a Bush bash.


slidge

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 1:30:08 PM4/29/04
to
>>
>>How dense can you be? I reduced your comments to the last line, since you
>>overlooked it in your previous reply apparently. When you engage in these
>>*generalized* swipes at Kerry's character, or honesty, you can expect a
>>response from someone.
>
>Any reason you felt the need to change the thread into a bash Bush
>attempt? If you can't respond to the topic at hand, why insert
>yourself into the discussion?
>

Dude, I think he was bashing *you*, not Bush.

PkJ0891

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 1:47:18 PM4/29/04
to
In article <1090ap2...@corp.supernews.com>, chicagofan <m...@privacy.net>
writes:

>robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
> > As for whether or not people are concerned about Kerry and the Catholic
> > Church, you'll note that the thread has gone on for about a week, and a
> > similiar thread exists in alt.fan.rush.limbaugh.
>
>LOL... I can just imagine the stimulating conversation over there. As for
>how long it has lasted here, it's only because a lot of nice, patient people
>here, have tried to reason with you. [Excluding myself.]

As OT political discussions go here in RAT, this one's been pretty sparse,
don't you think? While it's extended over roughly 15 days, this topic hasn't
engendered nearly the amount of posts I've seen in the past. And it's not as
though there are nothing but Kerry supporters or liberals hanging around. I'm
not complaining - I gave up trying to have an actual discussion days ago - I'm
just noting. AOL's having a major ng meltdown, so maybe I've been missing a
ton of posts, but from what I can see, either people are not interested or are
restraining themselves and saving it up for a political ng. Not a bad thing,
IMO.
PKJ

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 7:16:58 PM4/29/04
to
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:30:08 GMT, sli...@slidge.com.invalid (slidge)
wrote:

Initially, it was Bush. He seems to have gotten a tad testy since I
questioned him.

chicagofan

unread,
May 1, 2004, 8:40:50 PM5/1/04
to
robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
> sli...@slidge.com.invalid (slidge)wrote:

>>
>>Dude, I think he was bashing *you*, not Bush.

RIGHT! ;)


> Initially, it was Bush. He seems to have gotten a tad testy since I
> questioned him.


It's a she, not a he. And I was testy to begin with, over the unnecessary
snide remark about Kerry. Continue your religious rant... I'm gone. :)
bj

robx...@nowhere.com

unread,
May 2, 2004, 3:20:02 PM5/2/04
to
On Sat, 01 May 2004 20:40:50 -0400, chicagofan <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

My, we do see things through our own perspectives don't we?

Ubiquitous

unread,
May 6, 2004, 7:14:23 AM5/6/04
to
In rec.arts.tv aalu...@webtv.net wrote:

: Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
: tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
: Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
: wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive
: Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist.

I think a more apt term is "gigalo"; His first wife was wealthy and
he dumped her for a wealthier one, but that's going off-topic here...

On topic?
I thought Bill Donahue's show was cancelled about a year ago.

--
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.

z

unread,
May 6, 2004, 4:28:22 PM5/6/04
to
web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote in message news:<c7d6mf$1et$3...@news.utelfla.com>...

> In rec.arts.tv aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> : Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
> : tactic Kerry is a polygamist. Tonight on Scarborough Country Bill
> : Donahue stated that if Kerry did not get an annulment from his first
> : wife he is still married to her. Well this implies what? I am positive
> : Donahue wanted nonCatholics to believe Kerry is a polygamist.

So what? Condi let it slip that Bush is also her husband.

chicagofan

unread,
May 6, 2004, 5:12:59 PM5/6/04
to
z wrote:

> web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote in message news:<c7d6mf$1et$3...@news.utelfla.com>...
>
>>In rec.arts.tv aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>>: Well there is a new tactic by the religious right and republicans. The
>>: tactic Kerry is a polygamist.
>
>

> So what? Condi let it slip that Bush is also her husband.

LOL... and please note everyone, the oft mentioned *liberal* media has not
repeated that mistake endlessly... wonder why? Unlike the thousands of times
the media repeated the edited tape of Howard Dean's yell to rally his troops.

I would not have known about Condi's gaffe, if a friend had not told me.
bj

Georgiana Gates

unread,
May 6, 2004, 6:50:26 PM5/6/04
to
I wonder what she meant by that? One possibility is that she has an
ex-husband hidden away somewhere. Another possibility is that she
considers Bush her husband, which brings up the obvious question -
why?

Randy

unread,
May 6, 2004, 7:08:29 PM5/6/04
to
In article <409AC1...@hal-pc.org>,
Georgiana Gates <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote:

She likes her men powerful and dumb. Or at least one of those.

z

unread,
May 7, 2004, 8:57:52 AM5/7/04
to
Georgiana Gates <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message news:<409AC1...@hal-pc.org>...

He bosses her around and they don't have sex.

Mike1

unread,
May 8, 2004, 7:21:07 PM5/8/04
to
Randy <rdo...@nac99.com> wrote:

> Georgiana Gates <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
>> > I would not have known about Condi's gaffe, if a friend had not told me.
>> > bj
>> I wonder what she meant by that? One possibility is that she has an
>> ex-husband hidden away somewhere. Another possibility is that she
>> considers Bush her husband, which brings up the obvious question -
>> why?
>
>She likes her men powerful and dumb. Or at least one of those.


She must miss the reigns of LBJ and Clinton, men who had female staffers
take dictation while they sat on the commode.

--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Those who wave copies of the Constitution around as symbols of their
liberty remind me of dogs who have learned to carry their leashes in
their mouths. -- Butler Shaffer

0 new messages