On Sunday, 29 December 2013 17:30:00 UTC-4, wrote:


You forget that Krause is a fat ass......


this is very amusing since a lot of us remember that picture of your fat ass sitting on your friends Harley.
I don't know what was the most comical...
your fat, soft, pudgy body
your silly looking brillo hairdo
your 1970's style glasses
or the stupid grin on your face.

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:38:57 PM UTC-5, True North wrote:

this is very amusing since a lot of us remember that picture of your fat ass sitting on your friends Harley.

I don't know what was the most comical...

your fat, soft, pudgy body

your silly looking brillo hairdo

your 1970's style glasses

or the stupid grin on your face.

What's funnier is picturing you...waddling down the hall driving a ****ing MOP, asshole.

On 12/29/2013 11:57 AM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 12:15 AM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/28/13, 8:20 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/28/13, 5:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:20 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 12/28/13, 4:15 PM, wrote:


Excellent PR by the Catholic Church. They even made a believer of you.


Indeed, I believe the new pope has the right idea about what he should
say and do and of course I admire his ability to really, truly, **** off
the conservative christians in name only. But, I'm afraid, the catholic
church and religion have no appeal for me.


You've made that abundantly clear over and over and over and over again.

There are many however to whom the Catholic Church and religion in
general are major parts of their lives. How they practice their faith
and how involved they are are personal decisions to which they are
entitled. You have no right to establish the "rules".

Why do you insist on jamming your non-interest in what is important to
them "down their throats"?


I do have the right to do what I can to make sure "the religious" don't
shove or try to shove their beliefs down the throats of our non-sectarian
society. Why should they be allowed to do that?

I don't give a damn what the religious do or say in their churches or
homes in terms of forcing their smallmindedness on each other.

I will admit to giggling inside when several of the self-proclaimed
"christians" here make fun of minorities or the poor. I'm sure that's
what Jesus would want them to do, eh?


They have just as much right to jam it down your throat as you do to ram
your views down others throats.


Ah, but Bilious...I'm not doing anything to force abortions or gay
relationships on anyone, nor am I pushing a legislative agenda that does any of this.

"The Religious" to whom I refer are doing their best legislatively to
push their anti-gay, anti-abortion agenda on those who do not
subscribe to their beliefs.

Even if I get my way in the legislature and abortions are kept readily
available on those who want one, I'm not forcing anyone to get one.

Got it?


Got it that you are forcing your beliefs on others! Maybe those others
think that even if abortions are legal, they should not have pay for them!


You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive governors
and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for the pushy
religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance premiums to
pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should be S.O.L. when
they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?

D'oh.


Hell, smokers cost us less than most groups lifetime cost. They die
earlier, and do not linger for years as an octogenarian. And they pay a
lot of money via sin taxes to provide for their care. Abortion and
pregnancy is a lot different than cancer, and diseases.



Whoosh...right over your head. Again.


Whoosh my ass. Harry's posits are very limited. Limited to the very left!

Harry's posit: is un-wavering in support of democratic party line and
union spreck. Unimaginative and booring, not to mention unintelligent.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:38:57 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:

On Sunday, 29 December 2013 17:30:00 UTC-4, wrote:


You forget that Krause is a fat ass......


this is very amusing since a lot of us remember that picture of your fat ass sitting on your friends Harley.
I don't know what was the most comical...
your fat, soft, pudgy body
your silly looking brillo hairdo
your 1970's style glasses
or the stupid grin on your face.

One who complains of Prep H in his hair should not put down another's hairdo.
--

Hope you're day is spectacular!

On 12/29/13, 5:38 PM, True North wrote:
On Sunday, 29 December 2013 17:30:00 UTC-4, wrote:


You forget that Krause is a fat ass......


this is very amusing since a lot of us remember that picture of your fat ass sitting on your friends Harley.
I don't know what was the most comical...
your fat, soft, pudgy body
your silly looking brillo hairdo
your 1970's style glasses
or the stupid grin on your face.



It's even more amusing when you consider that Crazy Scott #2 has never
seen me or even a photo of me, and the only person in this newsgroup who
has did so more than 10 years ago, and he is *brittle* HIV-positive thin
with all sorts of health problems that have required surgery.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 19:13:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/29/13, 5:38 PM, True North wrote:
On Sunday, 29 December 2013 17:30:00 UTC-4, wrote:


You forget that Krause is a fat ass......


this is very amusing since a lot of us remember that picture of your fat ass sitting on your friends Harley.
I don't know what was the most comical...
your fat, soft, pudgy body
your silly looking brillo hairdo
your 1970's style glasses
or the stupid grin on your face.



It's even more amusing when you consider that Crazy Scott #2 has never
seen me or even a photo of me, and the only person in this newsgroup who
has did so more than 10 years ago, and he is *brittle* HIV-positive thin
with all sorts of health problems that have required surgery.

When one is as overweight as you, Krause, does it help to portray a person with an appropriate
weight as 'brittle HIV-positive thin'? If that is supposed to be derogatory, how does that portray
your 'real' feeling of gays?

Look at a weight chart and see where you fall, Harry. I'm 6'3" and weigh 185 lbs. Check yourself
out!

http://www.stephaniekeenan.com/wp-co...ight-chart.gif
--

Hope you're day is spectacular!

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 3:07:38 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Conservatives may hate Pope Francis, but the American people love him

more by a landslide according to a new poll.



A CNN poll shows that Pope Francis� popularity has skyrocketed in America.



The latest CNN poll reveals that while Pope Francis is loathed by

conservatives for having a more liberal approach, the great majority of

Americans and American Catholics approve of him.



A whopping 88 percent of American Catholics highly approve of Pope

Francis. Among the American people as a whole, his approval rating

stands at an incredible 75 percent. So even though conservatives have

made the pontiff the newest target of their hatred, Americans

overwhelmingly side with him. This suggests that even many conservatives

love the Pope despite what right-wing leaders think. After all, it�s

unlikely that these numbers are composed only of those who lean liberal.



Pope Francis is more popular than the conservative Republican Party.



Pope Francis� approval rating eclipses that of Republicans, which has

lingered in the sewers for a long time now. Nearly 60 percent of

Americans have an unfavorable view of the GOP according to the latest

Pew Poll. Congressional Republicans have an even worse unfavorable

rating that stands at 72 percent.



Both sets of numbers strongly suggest that conservatives who stand

against Pope Francis do so at their own peril. Yet another set of

numbers supports this. 70 percent of hispanics identify as Catholic in

America. Nearly the same number view the pontiff in a favorable light.

71 percent of hispanics voted for Democrats in 2012. The same poll

indicates that latino voters share the Holy Father�s view that too much

focus has been given to social issues and not enough on economic

inequality. Democrats and the Pope are on the same page on this front,

so the GOP only hurts themselves by hating the pontiff and his message.

Pope Francis has become a target of conservatives for taking a more

liberal view on several issues.



Since becoming the new Vicar of Christ in March, Pope Francis has made

it his mission to return the Catholic Church to the more liberal

teachings of Jesus. In that effort, he has taken many positions that

threaten the extreme views of �Christian� conservatives.



Pope Francis has taken up the plight of the poor and immigrants. He

supports protecting the environment. He has called for putting a stop to

hating homosexuals. He has been a progressive on women�s rights. And he

has attacked trickle-down economics as a �tyranny.� In addition, he has

also condemned obsessive ideology and those Christians who think they

are superior to others. In short, Pope Francis represents everything

that conservatives hate. Want to know more about why conservatives hate

Pope Francis? Just go here.

Americans reject the conservative agenda and support the compassionate

one of Pope Francis.



Hating the world�s foremost religious leader won�t score Republicans any

political points. It will only cause more people to rally around Pope

Francis and his message. Pope Francis� poll numbers have only risen

while his conservative haters see theirs fall into the gutter. A

previous poll showed that 79 percent of Catholics and 58 percent of the

general public approve of Pope Francis. As you can see, the pontiff is

even more popular now, and that�s in the midst of a hit job being

spearheaded against him by conservative media. Clearly, Americans reject

the conservative agenda and support the compassionate one of Pope

Francis. To put it another way, if conservatives hate it, it must be good..





http://tinyurl.com/ma2qeqg

--

Religion: together we can find the cure.

Hey Krausebag, I tell you what's really good for a "chuckle." It's you trying to act like you're an important person (eg: known every president since Truman, graduate of Yale, etc., etc., etc.) By the way, how's the Dr.-Dr.-Dr.?

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 7:13:25 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/29/13, 5:38 PM, True North wrote:

On Sunday, 29 December 2013 17:30:00 UTC-4, wrote:





You forget that Krause is a fat ass......





this is very amusing since a lot of us remember that picture of your fat ass sitting on your friends Harley.

I don't know what was the most comical...

your fat, soft, pudgy body

your silly looking brillo hairdo

your 1970's style glasses

or the stupid grin on your face.







It's even more amusing when you consider that Crazy Scott #2 has never

seen me or even a photo of me,


So you think......

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:14:41 PM UTC-5, hank wrote:

Harry's posit: is un-wavering in support of democratic party line and

union spreck. Unimaginative and booring, not to mention unintelligent.


What do you expect from a fat, greasy slug like Krause?

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 2:57 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive
governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for
the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance
premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should
be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?

D'oh.

So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery
disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people?

Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth.



I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I
would hope you would have realized that.

No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would
I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone
to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care
coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft
carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it.



Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would
much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government.
Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out
of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you
get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare
families!



Indeed, Bilious, I do believe in mandatory universal health care
coverage, and I don't believe the conditions mentioned should be excluded from coverage.

I also believe we should cut back drastically on military spending, with
the goal of reducing it by at least 50% over the next decade.


I agree somewhat. But what we have now is only universal healthcare for
abortions. And most of my post was ignored, and only Harry's specified
posits were posted by FOAD.


Perhaps if you knew what a posit was, and who FOAD and Harry were, you'd
appear to have a higher IQ than you present.


I know FOAD and Harry are idiots. Bragging on 2 (maybe) liberal arts
degrees. Sort of a continuation of high school.