On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Jan 28, 11:42*pm, josephkk wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:



"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"

If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.

If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!

Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? *Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? *Really?

?-)

I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what that
individual "may be" capable of accomplishing.

Do read more carefully, the word order i used is different.

?-)

On Feb 1, 10:21*pm, josephkk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:









On Jan 28, 11:42*pm, josephkk wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"

If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.

If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!

Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? *Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? *Really?

?-)

I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what that
individual "may be" capable of accomplishing.

Do read more carefully, the word order i used is different.

?-)

That was my point...you didn't follow what I was referring to!

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:51:39 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Feb 1, 10:21*pm, josephkk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:









On Jan 28, 11:42*pm, josephkk wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"

If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.

If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!

Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? *Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? *Really?

?-)

I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what that
individual "may be" capable of accomplishing.

Do read more carefully, the word order i used is different.

?-)

That was my point...you didn't follow what I was referring to!

Nonsense. You failed to get my point.

?-)

On Feb 10, 10:33*pm, josephkk wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:51:39 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:









On Feb 1, 10:21*pm, josephkk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Jan 28, 11:42*pm, josephkk wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"

If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.

If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!

Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? *Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? *Really?

?-)

I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what that
individual "may be" capable of accomplishing.

Do read more carefully, the word order i used is different.

?-)

That was my point...you didn't follow what I was referring to!

Nonsense. *You failed to get my point.

?-)

Took looooong enough! Dah!