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.

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?

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.

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.