Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (82420)	11/1/2004 10:21:45 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793820

But the folks who know will not break the law to tell us. A decision I respect but not one I would make. After all, there are higher issues at stake than a person's privacy. From a practical standpoint, anyone who is running for president has given up just about every aspect of a private life imaginable. Not everything, mind you, but just about everything, certainly any claim that his right to privacy encompasses deep-sixing a military record. That's how I would approach it if I had the information but was bound by a law that's being used to cover up issues of the kind that we face today. We simply cannot have a President who lies about his military record, who makes a big show out of "reporting for duty." The sad thing is that the Dems are going to feel utterly betrayed by this clown should he get elected and the information does, somehow, become public. If I had the information, those are the reasons I would get it out in public. Perhaps these guys fear recriminations under a Kerry presidency should the information not torpedo his candidacy. No jury would convict them, however. If there ever was a case for jury nullification, this would be it. Hell, it's probably too late now, anyway.

To: unclewest who wrote (82420)	11/1/2004 12:16:16 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793820

They got his marriage annulled after 18 years. How the hell do you do that? Annulment of civil marriage and annulment of religious marriage are two different processes entirely. Annulment of religious marriage in the Catholic church requires proof that the marriage did not meet the standards for formation of a valid Catholic marriage ceremony. The easiest ones are that a Catholic married a non-Catholic without dispensation, or that the ceremony wasn't performed by a priest. If both are Catholic and had a religious ceremony in the Catholic Church performed by a Catholic priest you can still get an annulment on the basis of fraud, duress or something else that voids consent. There's a big difference between contract formation in civil law countries and common law -- note here that in this context "civil law" doesn't mean the opposite of criminal law, it means in the Roman tradition. Lack of consent may void a contract easier than in a common law context. So, technically, a mental reservation ("I can always get a divorce if things don't work out") is imperfect consent. For a long time, the American Catholic church was handing out annulments on the basis of imperfect consent like candy, but Rome put a stop to that. And John Kerry is the poster child for mental reservations -- he probably never made a wholehearted commitment in his life.