Putin says...
 

On 3/12/14, 8:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


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

But you *are* into mocking, ridiculing, taunting, and insulting. That's your bag, eh?

You are a waste of ****ing time, Krause. You should filter me soon. You're not man enough to answer
the questions posed you about the lies you tell.


But, Johnny, if I filter you, how will I keep current with the leader of
the Republican Racists in rec.boats?

Putin says...
 

In article , says...

On 3/12/14, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

I am sure you heard that Republican David Jolly won the special election
in Florida. The area is almost equally divided between registered
Republicans and registered Democrats, so it can't be brushed off as
being a "Florida" thing. There are a lot of disgruntled voters across
the nation who are looking for a change in direction.


I saw that. A Republican retains a seat held by Republicans for 50
years. I'm not surprised. Jolly is just another conservative lobbying
whore, and is no better a public servant than the governor there, a
fellow who, among other things, pushed for mandatory drug testing of
welfare recipients and, just coincidentally, happens to own a drug
testing company. Whoosh.

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.
Obamcare won't, so the Republicans should be talking about "fixing"
it, instead of dismantling it.
They won't, of course.
Sink was a flawed candidate anyway.
Former CEO of Florida BOA, and too "rich."
She couldn't beat the crook they have as governor.
Beating a lesser crook was a high hurdle.

Putin says...
 

On 3/12/14, 9:43 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 3/12/14, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

I am sure you heard that Republican David Jolly won the special election
in Florida. The area is almost equally divided between registered
Republicans and registered Democrats, so it can't be brushed off as
being a "Florida" thing. There are a lot of disgruntled voters across
the nation who are looking for a change in direction.


I saw that. A Republican retains a seat held by Republicans for 50
years. I'm not surprised. Jolly is just another conservative lobbying
whore, and is no better a public servant than the governor there, a
fellow who, among other things, pushed for mandatory drug testing of
welfare recipients and, just coincidentally, happens to own a drug
testing company. Whoosh.

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.
Obamcare won't, so the Republicans should be talking about "fixing"
it, instead of dismantling it.
They won't, of course.
Sink was a flawed candidate anyway.
Former CEO of Florida BOA, and too "rich."
She couldn't beat the crook they have as governor.
Beating a lesser crook was a high hurdle.


Ahh, I wasn't following that Florida race. I had no idea Ms. Sink was
just another bankster.

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

Putin says...
 

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.

Putin says...
 

On 3/12/14, 12:25 PM, wrote:
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.

It is going to be a long summer.



I do hope Scott's "past" becomes a serious issue this time and, of
course, his pushing as governor for drug testing of assistance
recipients while he owns a drug testing lab.

Putin says...
 

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 6:59:05 AM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/11/14, 10:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 3/11/2014 9:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/11/14, 8:47 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:13:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:



I don't do the work I do for amusement. I do it for the reasons stated

in my first paragraph, above.



I have a couple of hobbies, and other leisure activities, but that's

what they are...leisure time activities, not my life.



That is just sad.



Your life is work?









You don't seem to get it. I like what I do. In many cases, my work helps

people who really need help, in this country and abroad, in sustainable

development, delivering reliable potable water, worker training, worker

rights, et cetera, in underdeveloped nations.



I also get to meet and work with interesting people in a number of

fields of endeavor, including business, labor, the fine arts, music,

theater, and movies. I get to wear a suit and tie if I want. I get to

travel to interesting places on someone else's dime. I get paid nicely

for this, and get to produce interesting deliverables.



To me, that's a lot more interesting and a lot more fun than flying

model airplanes, playing golf, RV'ing, et cetera.



To each his own.





To each his own is right.



Many people who work or volunteer their time and efforts to support

humanitarian causes are respected and even admired. However when you

constantly ridicule, mock and taunt people because they have interests

that you don't share or because they desire to enjoy their hard won

retirement years pursuing endeavors that don't interest you, any respect

you may think you have earned goes out the window.











This is rec.boats. I'm just trying to fit in as much as my digestive

track allows with the right-wing slime whose almost entire reason for

existence here is to ridicule, mock, and taunt. Fortunately, my

digestive track doesn't allow much of that, so I simply send most of

those righties straight to the filter and septic tank system without

reading their excrement.

**** OFF ASSHOLE. GO GET DONNIE TO SMOKE YOUR POLE SOME MORE.

Putin says...
 

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'

Putin says...
 

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:08:41 PM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:23:27 -0700 (PDT), Tim

wrote:



On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:30:36 PM UTC-5, HanK wrote:





There comes a time when one wants to stop doing for a living and start



living.



Reminds me of an old saying-



"Do you work to live or live to work?"



===



Work'n to live



Live'n to work



One man's hero,



Another mans jerk.



Sounds like we should put it to music, maybe to the tune of "16 Tons"

by the late, great Tennessee Ernie Ford?



We might have a hit on our hands. :-)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joo90ZWrUkU



Personally I worked hard all my life. Never missed a paycheck, saved

for retirement, put my kids through good colleges, paid my taxes, and

repaid my debts. I have no regrets about my life or retirement.

Absolutely Wayne. You should enjoy the fruits of your labor. I'm looking forward to hear about your next launch...

Putin says...
 

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.

Putin says...
 

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.

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.

Putin says...
 

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:37:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

And, luckily, the liberals have you.

Putin says...
 

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 05:51:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

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.

===

Scott did one thing that impressed me. When the Feds tried to hand
him a multi-billion pork barrel project to build high speed rail
between Tampa and Orlando he said no thanks. Scott said the project
was ill advised, not needed and a financial boondoggle - absolutely
right on all counts. Not many governors would have done that.

Putin says...
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 05:51:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

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.

===

Scott did one thing that impressed me. When the Feds tried to hand
him a multi-billion pork barrel project to build high speed rail
between Tampa and Orlando he said no thanks. Scott said the project
was ill advised, not needed and a financial boondoggle - absolutely
right on all counts. Not many governors would have done that.

The $2.4 billion was quickly allocated to about 24 other states.
Good for Scott. I'm sure those states appreciated his largess.
This disputes your contentions:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...1/aug/11/rick-
scott/gov-scott-says-rail-would-have-cost-state-taxpayer/
But facts are useless when you're talking extremist politics.
Scott is now doing something similar anyway, but with slow trains.

Putin says...
 

On 3/13/14, 3:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 05:51:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

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.

===

Scott did one thing that impressed me. When the Feds tried to hand
him a multi-billion pork barrel project to build high speed rail
between Tampa and Orlando he said no thanks. Scott said the project
was ill advised, not needed and a financial boondoggle - absolutely
right on all counts. Not many governors would have done that.

The $2.4 billion was quickly allocated to about 24 other states.
Good for Scott. I'm sure those states appreciated his largess.
This disputes your contentions:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...1/aug/11/rick-
scott/gov-scott-says-rail-would-have-cost-state-taxpayer/
But facts are useless when you're talking extremist politics.
Scott is now doing something similar anyway, but with slow trains.



Scott probably wanted to be sure there would be funds to pay for some of
the costs of the drug tests he wanted to impose on welfare recipients,
because that would have channeled dollars into the drug testing company
he owns.

I know Crist is running a pretty good campaign against Scott, but it is
awfully close.

Putin says...
 

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:24:26 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Scott probably wanted to be sure there would be funds to pay for some of
the costs of the drug tests he wanted to impose on welfare recipients

===

I have absolutely no problem with drug testing public assistance
recipients. Why should the hard working, tax paying union members of
this great country be supporting junkies?

Putin says...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/11/14, 8:47 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:13:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I don't do the work I do for amusement. I do it for the reasons stated
in my first paragraph, above.

I have a couple of hobbies, and other leisure activities, but that's
what they are...leisure time activities, not my life.

That is just sad.

Your life is work?




You don't seem to get it. I like what I do. In many cases, my work
helps people who really need help, in this country and abroad, in
sustainable development, delivering reliable potable water, worker
training, worker rights, et cetera, in underdeveloped nations.

I also get to meet and work with interesting people in a number of
fields of endeavor, including business, labor, the fine arts, music,
theater, and movies. I get to wear a suit and tie if I want. I get to
travel to interesting places on someone else's dime. I get paid nicely
for this, and get to produce interesting deliverables.

To me, that's a lot more interesting and a lot more fun than flying
model airplanes, playing golf, RV'ing, et cetera.

To each his own.
"I'm just trying to fit in as much as my digestive track allows with the
right-wing slime whose almost entire reason for existence here is to
ridicule, mock, and taunt."

Putin says...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 8:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


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

But you *are* into mocking, ridiculing, taunting, and insulting.
That's your bag, eh?

You are a waste of ****ing time, Krause. You should filter me soon.
You're not man enough to answer
the questions posed you about the lies you tell.


But, Johnny, if I filter you, how will I keep current with the leader
of the Republican Racists in rec.boats?

"I'm just trying to fit in as much as my digestive track allows with the
right-wing slime whose almost entire reason for existence here is to
ridicule, mock, and taunt."

Putin says...
 

On 3/13/2014 7:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:24:26 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Scott probably wanted to be sure there would be funds to pay for some of
the costs of the drug tests he wanted to impose on welfare recipients

===

I have absolutely no problem with drug testing public assistance
recipients. Why should the hard working, tax paying union members of
this great country be supporting junkies?


Because the dems can get them to vote several times each cycle as long
as they keep them dependent.

Putin says...
 

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:46:43 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:24:26 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Scott probably wanted to be sure there would be funds to pay for some of
the costs of the drug tests he wanted to impose on welfare recipients

===

I have absolutely no problem with drug testing public assistance
recipients. Why should the hard working, tax paying union members of
this great country be supporting junkies?

It would impose a hardship on those folks to be drug tested. Just like it would impose a hardship
for them to get a free voter ID.

Putin says...
 

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:49:09 -0400, Earl wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/12/14, 8:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


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

But you *are* into mocking, ridiculing, taunting, and insulting.
That's your bag, eh?

You are a waste of ****ing time, Krause. You should filter me soon.
You're not man enough to answer
the questions posed you about the lies you tell.


But, Johnny, if I filter you, how will I keep current with the leader
of the Republican Racists in rec.boats?

"I'm just trying to fit in as much as my digestive track allows with the
right-wing slime whose almost entire reason for existence here is to
ridicule, mock, and taunt."

To Krause, hypocrisy is a reason for existence.

Putin says...
 

In article ,
says...


If the memorandum refers to government employees or to corporations with
major government contracts, I can understand it. It's similar to his
minimum wage decree. I don't think he or the government should be
dictating to private industry however in terms of pay scales and benefit
packages including a requirement of private industry employers to offer
health care packages. It should be left up to the employers to
determine what they pay and what benefits they offer.

Fundamental difference between a conservative and a progressive liberal.

Then "conservatives" (whatever that means) should be working to repeal
the The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
They can work on repealing SS and Medicare while they're at it.

Putin says...
 

On 3/14/14, 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:55:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I'm sorry, but this maxim..."the natural competitive nature of the free
enterprise system would correct itself."...is just tired out bull****.
It isn't true anymore if it ever was, especially since the 1980s.

The nature of today's corporate oligarchy is to eliminate competition,
eliminate jobs, raise prices, and cut back on service.

Do you really think the Comcast-Time Warner merger is going to result in
"benefits" for any of the employees or customers of either organization?

You are confusing the pressures of globalism on wages with corporate
greed.

You think the Comcast-TW merger is an outgrowth of globalism? How so?


I agree we could and probably should go back to a more diverse
corporate landscape by enforcing anti trust laws more strictly but
that might just push these corporations offshore.

There are ways to handle that legally, such as restricting their
business opportunities in this market if they do that.


The dirty little secret is that most of the wealth held by the 1% is
an illusion and would quickly evaporate...

Banksters and stockbrokers waiting in line at soup kitchens and jumping
off buildings? Sounds good to me.

Putin says...
 

On 3/14/14, 9:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:20:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/14/14, 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:55:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I'm sorry, but this maxim..."the natural competitive nature of the free
enterprise system would correct itself."...is just tired out bull****.
It isn't true anymore if it ever was, especially since the 1980s.

The nature of today's corporate oligarchy is to eliminate competition,
eliminate jobs, raise prices, and cut back on service.

Do you really think the Comcast-Time Warner merger is going to result in
"benefits" for any of the employees or customers of either organization?

You are confusing the pressures of globalism on wages with corporate
greed.

You think the Comcast-TW merger is an outgrowth of globalism? How so?

Yes, I would not be shocked if they go after Mexican or Canadian TV
next.
Comcast is the Borg.


I agree we could and probably should go back to a more diverse
corporate landscape by enforcing anti trust laws more strictly but
that might just push these corporations offshore.

There are ways to handle that legally, such as restricting their
business opportunities in this market if they do that.


How is that going for you so far?

Nowhere of course. I said there were ways to restrict them. I didn't say
we were doing it.


The dirty little secret is that most of the wealth held by the 1% is
an illusion and would quickly evaporate...

Banksters and stockbrokers waiting in line at soup kitchens and jumping
off buildings? Sounds good to me.

I am sure you loved the stock brokers jumping out the windows in 1929
but they got off easy. Read some Steinbeck.

I'm sure I've read more Steinbeck than you have.


This is a bubble that makes 1929 look like a bounced check at the
grocery store.
To start with, the US is not going to be an economy backed with gold
and a world class manufacturing base that is simply under used.
We are an over extended paper tiger with very little in hard assets to
drag us up out of the mud when our paper wealth evaporates. The world
will follow us down the drain.



Gee, I hope the brokers and banks go down the drain first. They are so
deserving.

Putin says...
 

On 3/15/14, 1:15 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:24:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/14/14, 9:46 PM, wrote:

There are ways to handle that legally, such as restricting their
business opportunities in this market if they do that.


How is that going for you so far?

Nowhere of course. I said there were ways to restrict them. I didn't say
we were doing it.

Nobody in the government is going to do anything that is bad for their
biggest contributors.




The dirty little secret is that most of the wealth held by the 1% is
an illusion and would quickly evaporate...

Banksters and stockbrokers waiting in line at soup kitchens and jumping
off buildings? Sounds good to me.

I am sure you loved the stock brokers jumping out the windows in 1929
but they got off easy. Read some Steinbeck.

I'm sure I've read more Steinbeck than you have.

I bet that is right. You are missing the point tho. If it rains on
Wall Street, it is a tsunami on Main Street

Only because we've let it become that way.




This is a bubble that makes 1929 look like a bounced check at the
grocery store.
To start with, the US is not going to be an economy backed with gold
and a world class manufacturing base that is simply under used.
We are an over extended paper tiger with very little in hard assets to
drag us up out of the mud when our paper wealth evaporates. The world
will follow us down the drain.


I had no idea you also were a trained economist. Wow. And a first-rate
non-scientific outboard repair guy, too

Putin says...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/14/14, 9:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:20:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/14/14, 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:55:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I'm sorry, but this maxim..."the natural competitive nature of the
free
enterprise system would correct itself."...is just tired out
bull****.
It isn't true anymore if it ever was, especially since the 1980s.

The nature of today's corporate oligarchy is to eliminate
competition,
eliminate jobs, raise prices, and cut back on service.

Do you really think the Comcast-Time Warner merger is going to
result in
"benefits" for any of the employees or customers of either
organization?

You are confusing the pressures of globalism on wages with corporate
greed.

You think the Comcast-TW merger is an outgrowth of globalism? How so?

Yes, I would not be shocked if they go after Mexican or Canadian TV
next.
Comcast is the Borg.


I agree we could and probably should go back to a more diverse
corporate landscape by enforcing anti trust laws more strictly but
that might just push these corporations offshore.

There are ways to handle that legally, such as restricting their
business opportunities in this market if they do that.


How is that going for you so far?

Nowhere of course. I said there were ways to restrict them. I didn't
say we were doing it.


The dirty little secret is that most of the wealth held by the 1% is
an illusion and would quickly evaporate...

Banksters and stockbrokers waiting in line at soup kitchens and jumping
off buildings? Sounds good to me.

I am sure you loved the stock brokers jumping out the windows in 1929
but they got off easy. Read some Steinbeck.

I'm sure I've read more Steinbeck than you have.


This is a bubble that makes 1929 look like a bounced check at the
grocery store.
To start with, the US is not going to be an economy backed with gold
and a world class manufacturing base that is simply under used.
We are an over extended paper tiger with very little in hard assets to
drag us up out of the mud when our paper wealth evaporates. The world
will follow us down the drain.



Gee, I hope the brokers and banks go down the drain first. They are so
deserving.

"I'm just trying to fit in as much as my digestive track allows with the
right-wing slime whose almost entire reason for existence here is to
ridicule, mock, and taunt. - Harry Krause"

Putin says...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/15/14, 1:15 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:24:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/14/14, 9:46 PM, wrote:

There are ways to handle that legally, such as restricting their
business opportunities in this market if they do that.


How is that going for you so far?

Nowhere of course. I said there were ways to restrict them. I didn't
say
we were doing it.

Nobody in the government is going to do anything that is bad for their
biggest contributors.




The dirty little secret is that most of the wealth held by the 1% is
an illusion and would quickly evaporate...

Banksters and stockbrokers waiting in line at soup kitchens and
jumping
off buildings? Sounds good to me.

I am sure you loved the stock brokers jumping out the windows in 1929
but they got off easy. Read some Steinbeck.

I'm sure I've read more Steinbeck than you have.

I bet that is right. You are missing the point tho. If it rains on
Wall Street, it is a tsunami on Main Street

Only because we've let it become that way.




This is a bubble that makes 1929 look like a bounced check at the
grocery store.
To start with, the US is not going to be an economy backed with gold
and a world class manufacturing base that is simply under used.
We are an over extended paper tiger with very little in hard assets to
drag us up out of the mud when our paper wealth evaporates. The world
will follow us down the drain.


I had no idea you also were a trained economist. Wow. And a first-rate
non-scientific outboard repair guy, too


"I'm just trying to fit in as much as my digestive track allows with the
right-wing slime whose almost entire reason for existence here is to
ridicule, mock, and taunt. - Harry Krause"