Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what thatOn Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
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?
?-)
Do read more carefully, the word order i used is different.On Jan 28, 11:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
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.
That was my point...you didn't follow what I was referring to!On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
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.
?-)
Nonsense. You failed to get my point.On Feb 1, 10:21 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
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!
Took looooong enough! Dah!On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:51:39 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:21 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
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.
?-)