"John Hill" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:35:27 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

ush deserves all the "denigration" he gets. He's the dumbest president
in the history of the United States, so far as I can tell, and on top of
that, he's intellectually lazy, a liar, and grossly incompetent.

Bush and his gang of thugs have a long and dishonorable history of dirty
tricks. Just ask John McCain. You want photos of Bush with his hand in
the cookie jar? I don't have them. But I also don't have photos of the
electricity running through the wires in my house when I flick on a
switch and the room lights up.



And you continue proving the point with hearsay


And still you have not answered the main thrust. Bush now , whatever
he may, or may not have done in the past is a committed christian who
has changed his life.

Bush may indeed deserve to be committed. If, by Christian, you mean a
follower of Jesus, Bush is no Christian. By any reasonable account,
Jesus, the Prince of Peace, would not condone massive scale warfare
perpetrated on trumped-up charges. Nor would Jesus condone ignoring the
plight of the poor.

Bush is not a Christian. He may follow the precepts of some
simple-minded fundamentalist sect that claims to be "Christian," but it
isn't. True Christians follow as closely as they can the path of Mother
Teresa, not Attila the Hun.


Whatever. see above

And, as far as Bush "changing his life," if you are referring to his
claim he has given up booze, drugs and skirt-chasing, well, we only have
his word for that.


We have no evidence to the contrary - after all he's no Bill Clinton


There is no eveidence that Kerry has done the
same.

I don't recall John Kerry ever claiming to now being "holier than thou."
But, then, as far as I know, Kerry isn't a booze-ingesting,
coke-snorting skirt chaser...


But he did "Report for duty" raising the spectre of his dubious
service

But Bush's past isn't the problem. It's his present. He is an
unmitigated disaster for the United States and the world.

I'd love to see a point by point reasoned argument of that pov, but
doubt I will

Yeah.....don;t hold your breathe......you won't even see it from the
epitome of intelligence (really arrogance) the liebrals are running for
president...

JH

John Hill wrote:

I don't recall John Kerry ever claiming to now being "holier than thou."
But, then, as far as I know, Kerry isn't a booze-ingesting,
coke-snorting skirt chaser...


But he did "Report for duty" raising the spectre of his dubious
service


There is nothing dubious about Kerry's military service. He served
honorably in Vietnam, and he received a number of decorations you do not
get gor attendance.

It is Bush's military service that is dubious.




--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Hill wrote:

I don't recall John Kerry ever claiming to now being "holier than thou."
But, then, as far as I know, Kerry isn't a booze-ingesting,
coke-snorting skirt chaser...


But he did "Report for duty" raising the spectre of his dubious
service


There is nothing dubious about Kerry's military service. He served
honorably in Vietnam, and he received a number of decorations you do not
get gor attendance.


Why'd it take 30 years before Kerry was granted an honorable discharge?
Isn't that usually issued right away?

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:15:30 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Why'd it take 30 years before Kerry was granted an honorable discharge?
Isn't that usually issued right away?

It didn't. Have you been listening to Rush lately?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_...y_records.html

What drugs are you fellas taking?

Bush now , whatever
he may, or may not have done in the past is a committed christian who
has changed his life.

But then the liberal response is always one of feelings, not reason or
argument - as you demonstrate so very well.

JH

It's more like Bush shed his skin than changed his life. JH, how can
you tout a "committed christian" and then ask for reason and argument?
Reason and argument eliminate religion as a possibility. Tell me some
of the reasons and arguments christians use to justify war and rampant
killing, especially the pre-emptive sort.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:30:22 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

But he did "Report for duty" raising the spectre of his dubious
service


There is nothing dubious about Kerry's military service. He served
honorably in Vietnam, and he received a number of decorations you do not
get gor attendance.


Well AIUI the officer who signed the commendation was unaware of many
of the facts and the proper process was not followed. AFAIK he got
decorations for what I would have considered a day at the office for
my troops.

JH


It is Bush's military service that is dubious.

On 22 Sep 2004 15:45:57 -0700, (Sam) wrote:

But then the liberal response is always one of feelings, not reason or
argument - as you demonstrate so very well.

JH

It's more like Bush shed his skin than changed his life. JH, how can
you tout a "committed christian" and then ask for reason and argument?
Reason and argument eliminate religion as a possibility. Tell me some
of the reasons and arguments christians use to justify war and rampant
killing, especially the pre-emptive sort.


All I am suggesting is that he changed his life, something Kerry
hasn't done. Kerry has only changed his wife - for a slicker, richer
one who suited his political ambitions.

Belief in God is not the important component here - life and value
change is.

JH

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:04:07 +0100, John Hill wrote:


Well AIUI the officer who signed the commendation was unaware of many of
the facts and the proper process was not followed.

According to the Navy's Inspector General, procedures were properly
followed in awarding Kerry's medals.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:04:07 +0100, John Hill wrote:


Well AIUI the officer who signed the commendation was unaware of many of
the facts and the proper process was not followed.

According to the Navy's Inspector General, procedures were properly
followed in awarding Kerry's medals.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html

You have to read between the lines and understand the ramificaitons of
reviewing decorations. If something is found to have been done in error it
will call into question all of the awards presented prior to and subsequent
to Kerry's award. That would be a very large mess that nobody wants.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:02:40 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


You have to read between the lines and understand the ramificaitons of
reviewing decorations. If something is found to have been done in error it
will call into question all of the awards presented prior to and
subsequent to Kerry's award. That would be a very large mess that nobody
wants.

I'm not calling into question *any* awards, including Kerry's. In fact,
I'm not questioning either of the two candidates military service, Bush or
Kerry.