Putin says...
 

On 3/12/14, 6:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2014 6:03 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 5:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:21:09 AM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:




Sorry, I'm not into conversions, religious or political.



Sure you are, Harry. That's why you continually start threads on
politics and occasionally 'religious'



No, Timmy, you are wrong. I have no interest in converting anyone here
to or from religious beliefs or in changing political parties or
affinities.

In fact, the words and actions of *most* of those here who claim to be
religious belie their true beliefs. Anyone can twist or interpret the
new testament anyway he or she likes, but to state directly or
indirectly you favor taking food, medicine, shelter, clothing or decent
free public schooling away from kids in impoverished households sends a
clear signal: if you believe in doing that, you are NOT a follower of
Jesus.

Don't worry about it. Compassion, charity and good deeds work in
mysterious ways that you obviously can't understand.




You assume and presume too much. Please explain to me how a
self-proclaimed follower of Jesus can favor taking food, medicine,
shelter, clothing or decent free public schooling away from kids in
impoverished households.

"Yes, indeedy, I'm a true Christian and follower of Jesus, because I
don't think poor children should eat decent meals, get medicine or
treatment when they are ill, have anything more than rags to wear, live
in anything better than a shelter, or be able to attend decent public
schools...they're not fetuses, after all, and therefore they are on
their own."

I got it. Compassion, charity and good deeds will replace all that
except, of course, it can't and doesn't. Because if it did, we wouldn't
have all these impoverished children.

Putin says...
 

On 3/12/2014 6:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 6:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2014 6:03 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 5:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:21:09 AM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:




Sorry, I'm not into conversions, religious or political.



Sure you are, Harry. That's why you continually start threads on
politics and occasionally 'religious'



No, Timmy, you are wrong. I have no interest in converting anyone here
to or from religious beliefs or in changing political parties or
affinities.

In fact, the words and actions of *most* of those here who claim to be
religious belie their true beliefs. Anyone can twist or interpret the
new testament anyway he or she likes, but to state directly or
indirectly you favor taking food, medicine, shelter, clothing or decent
free public schooling away from kids in impoverished households sends a
clear signal: if you believe in doing that, you are NOT a follower of
Jesus.

Don't worry about it. Compassion, charity and good deeds work in
mysterious ways that you obviously can't understand.




You assume and presume too much. Please explain to me how a
self-proclaimed follower of Jesus can favor taking food, medicine,
shelter, clothing or decent free public schooling away from kids in
impoverished households.

"Yes, indeedy, I'm a true Christian and follower of Jesus, because I
don't think poor children should eat decent meals, get medicine or
treatment when they are ill, have anything more than rags to wear, live
in anything better than a shelter, or be able to attend decent public
schools...they're not fetuses, after all, and therefore they are on
their own."

I got it. Compassion, charity and good deeds will replace all that
except, of course, it can't and doesn't. Because if it did, we wouldn't
have all these impoverished children.



Reality is there will always be poor areas of the USA and the world.
The USA, consisting of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Christians,
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and whatever leads the world in charitable
donations and programs to help the needy. Your politically biased
views have nothing to do with good deeds. You just detest conservative
thinking (i.e. Republicans) because ... well just because you are you.

We are leading up to an off year election and there's a lot at stake for
incumbent Democrats running for re-election. It's not surprising to
see you stepping up the political propaganda BS but you are starting to
go over the edge.

Putin says...
 

On 3/12/14, 6:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2014 6:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 6:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2014 6:03 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 5:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:21:09 AM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:




Sorry, I'm not into conversions, religious or political.



Sure you are, Harry. That's why you continually start threads on
politics and occasionally 'religious'



No, Timmy, you are wrong. I have no interest in converting anyone here
to or from religious beliefs or in changing political parties or
affinities.

In fact, the words and actions of *most* of those here who claim to be
religious belie their true beliefs. Anyone can twist or interpret the
new testament anyway he or she likes, but to state directly or
indirectly you favor taking food, medicine, shelter, clothing or decent
free public schooling away from kids in impoverished households sends a
clear signal: if you believe in doing that, you are NOT a follower of
Jesus.

Don't worry about it. Compassion, charity and good deeds work in
mysterious ways that you obviously can't understand.




You assume and presume too much. Please explain to me how a
self-proclaimed follower of Jesus can favor taking food, medicine,
shelter, clothing or decent free public schooling away from kids in
impoverished households.

"Yes, indeedy, I'm a true Christian and follower of Jesus, because I
don't think poor children should eat decent meals, get medicine or
treatment when they are ill, have anything more than rags to wear, live
in anything better than a shelter, or be able to attend decent public
schools...they're not fetuses, after all, and therefore they are on
their own."

I got it. Compassion, charity and good deeds will replace all that
except, of course, it can't and doesn't. Because if it did, we wouldn't
have all these impoverished children.



Reality is there will always be poor areas of the USA and the world. The
USA, consisting of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Christians,
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and whatever leads the world in charitable
donations and programs to help the needy. Your politically biased
views have nothing to do with good deeds. You just detest conservative
thinking (i.e. Republicans) because ... well just because you are you.

We are leading up to an off year election and there's a lot at stake for
incumbent Democrats running for re-election. It's not surprising to
see you stepping up the political propaganda BS but you are starting to
go over the edge.







That "the poor always will be among us" is no excuse to make the lives
of impoverished children more miserable, as the Republicans are doing by
cutting back on needed programs, including food programs.

And while charitable giving is nice, it doesn't provide nearly enough
for those the most in need.

It's perfectly ok to rationalize the behavior of the GOP towards the
poor. It is recognized for what it is.

Putin says...
 

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:03:15 PM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 5:31 PM, Tim wrote:

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:21:09 AM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:









Sorry, I'm not into conversions, religious or political.







Sure you are, Harry. That's why you continually start threads on politics and occasionally 'religious'







No, Timmy, you are wrong. I have no interest in converting anyone here

to or from religious beliefs or in changing political parties or affinities.



In fact, the words and actions of *most* of those here who claim to be

religious belie their true beliefs. Anyone can twist or interpret the

new testament anyway he or she likes, but to state directly or

indirectly you favor taking food, medicine, shelter, clothing or decent

free public schooling away from kids in impoverished households sends a

clear signal: if you believe in doing that, you are NOT a follower of

Jesus.

There y'go. Talking religion already.

Putin says...
 

On 3/12/14, 6:48 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:03:15 PM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 5:31 PM, Tim wrote:

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:21:09 AM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:









Sorry, I'm not into conversions, religious or political.







Sure you are, Harry. That's why you continually start threads on politics and occasionally 'religious'







No, Timmy, you are wrong. I have no interest in converting anyone here

to or from religious beliefs or in changing political parties or affinities.



In fact, the words and actions of *most* of those here who claim to be

religious belie their true beliefs. Anyone can twist or interpret the

new testament anyway he or she likes, but to state directly or

indirectly you favor taking food, medicine, shelter, clothing or decent

free public schooling away from kids in impoverished households sends a

clear signal: if you believe in doing that, you are NOT a follower of

Jesus.

There y'go. Talking religion already.


But, to address your prior claim, no intent to convert.

Putin says...
 

On 3/12/2014 5:45 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 6:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2014 6:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 6:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2014 6:03 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 5:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:21:09 AM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:




Sorry, I'm not into conversions, religious or political.



Sure you are, Harry. That's why you continually start threads on
politics and occasionally 'religious'



No, Timmy, you are wrong. I have no interest in converting anyone here
to or from religious beliefs or in changing political parties or
affinities.

In fact, the words and actions of *most* of those here who claim to be
religious belie their true beliefs. Anyone can twist or interpret the
new testament anyway he or she likes, but to state directly or
indirectly you favor taking food, medicine, shelter, clothing or
decent
free public schooling away from kids in impoverished households
sends a
clear signal: if you believe in doing that, you are NOT a follower of
Jesus.

Don't worry about it. Compassion, charity and good deeds work in
mysterious ways that you obviously can't understand.




You assume and presume too much. Please explain to me how a
self-proclaimed follower of Jesus can favor taking food, medicine,
shelter, clothing or decent free public schooling away from kids in
impoverished households.

"Yes, indeedy, I'm a true Christian and follower of Jesus, because I
don't think poor children should eat decent meals, get medicine or
treatment when they are ill, have anything more than rags to wear, live
in anything better than a shelter, or be able to attend decent public
schools...they're not fetuses, after all, and therefore they are on
their own."

I got it. Compassion, charity and good deeds will replace all that
except, of course, it can't and doesn't. Because if it did, we wouldn't
have all these impoverished children.



Reality is there will always be poor areas of the USA and the world. The
USA, consisting of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Christians,
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and whatever leads the world in charitable
donations and programs to help the needy. Your politically biased
views have nothing to do with good deeds. You just detest conservative
thinking (i.e. Republicans) because ... well just because you are you.

We are leading up to an off year election and there's a lot at stake for
incumbent Democrats running for re-election. It's not surprising to
see you stepping up the political propaganda BS but you are starting to
go over the edge.







That "the poor always will be among us" is no excuse to make the lives
of impoverished children more miserable, as the Republicans are doing by
cutting back on needed programs, including food programs.

And while charitable giving is nice, it doesn't provide nearly enough
for those the most in need.

It's perfectly ok to rationalize the behavior of the GOP towards the
poor. It is recognized for what it is.



You need to go live among the Amish for a while.

Putin says...
 

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:43:26 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

It's said that about half the voters +65 of age in this district.
Jolly was heavy on Medicare Advantage scare ads.
Those old folks will die off in time.

===

What you may not appreciate is that there are "new" old folks being
created all the time, and quite a few more moving into Florida as part
of their retirement dream.

Putin says...
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:44:03 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 09:49:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Speaking of big-time crooks, I haven't been following the Florida
governor Scott's re-election race, either.

I wouldn't if I were you.
Once Scott starts comparing records in the inevitable deluge of ads
that are coming, people will remember why they were not thrilled with
Crist.

Perhaps you weren't "thrilled" with Crist.
But he had a 63% approval rating vs Scott's 45%.
Of course he's a Democrat now, so that'll make a difference.


The question is not how well he looked when he started. It is how he
ended.

Crist got beat by Rubio ... twice in the same race.

He ran as an independant, and Meek as the Democrat took 20% of the vote.
That was for a Senate seat in the "Year of the Tea Party."
Now he's a Democrat, and opposes Scott alone for the governorship.
But I make no predictions that he can unseat a crook, in Florida.

Putin says...
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:43:26 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

It's said that about half the voters +65 of age in this district.
Jolly was heavy on Medicare Advantage scare ads.
Those old folks will die off in time.

===

What you may not appreciate is that there are "new" old folks being
created all the time, and quite a few more moving into Florida as part
of their retirement dream.

Florida has fallen to 5th in "oldsters."
Besides, one generation of oldsters is different than the last.
They "learn."

Putin says...
 

On 3/13/14, 6:55 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:43:26 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

It's said that about half the voters +65 of age in this district.
Jolly was heavy on Medicare Advantage scare ads.
Those old folks will die off in time.

===

What you may not appreciate is that there are "new" old folks being
created all the time, and quite a few more moving into Florida as part
of their retirement dream.

Florida has fallen to 5th in "oldsters."
Besides, one generation of oldsters is different than the last.
They "learn."



About all the GOP has these days: "scare" techniques.