On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the
dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.

Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen
people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent-
teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc.



When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed
create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent
household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh?





Erections have consequences.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:48:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:41:22 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

The Pilgrims weren't the "Founding Fathers".

They were "Flounder Fathers".

Sure they were founding fathers. What would make you think they weren't?
Is there some written classification regarding what is considered
founding fathers, or who gets to make that judgment?

===

The pilgrims were here almost 150 years before the declaration of
independence, revolutionary war and the writing/ratification of the
constitution. The people behind those actions are without doubt the
founding fathers.

Where is this definition of "founding fathers"?

===

I just gave it to you. Try to pay attention in class.

In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the
dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.

Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen
people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent-
teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc.



When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed
create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent
household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh?





Erections have consequences.

Good one!

On Thursday, 14 November 2013 11:01:43 UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 11/14/13, 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:





In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".

This would, of course, require

government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency

of government handouts. In

other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.



It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the

'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays

any taxes.



John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!









We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves

because we had to work.











You boys are decades behind the times.



When my kids got to be preschool age, in the mid 70's, it cost $75 a kid

a week to send a kid to a licensed preschool with a quality program and

good teachers in our DC suburb, or about $600 a month for both of them

until one was old enough for public school kindergarten. It was do-able

on a middle class income. Nowadays, according to my neighbors, the same

sort of quality preschool is $1000 to $1200 a month for *one* child,

putting preschool out of the reach of most middle class income families,

and if they have two or three preschool kids, forget about it.



Public preschool allows both parents in a middle class household to work

and allows the parent in a single parent household to work. That's one

of the realities of life these days...it is much more expensive then

when you fellow old farts were raising babies, and incomes in terms of

real dollars have not kept pace for middle and lower income families.







In our old fart days, that's what friends, family and grandparents were

for in many cases. I recall Navy wives taking turns watching kids so

the others could work or take care of errands. We are not talking about

educating future Einsteins in "Pre-Kindergarden" for cripes sake. It's

basically day care.



When our youngest came on the scene in the 1980's he went to a licensed

day care place so Mrs.E. could go back to work. We paid for it but it

was still affordable. You have to decide if the cost of daycare versus

what you make working makes sense. It's part of the responsibility of

having and raising kids.



I can also remember being five years old and being with my grandmother

while my mother went to work.



Now the federal government is going to fund daycare services with

taxpayer's money?


For decades now, certain factions have been trying to get govt supplied daycare here.
At this point there are x number of positions available for low income families.
We had our two boys in a Pre School but had to pay the full price because of our combined incomes.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:06:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the
dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.

Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen
people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent-
teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc.



When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed
create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent
household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh?





Erections have consequences.

From the liberal perspective, the consequence is more handouts, higher taxes, bigger government, and
more votes.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On 11/14/2013 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the
dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.

Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen
people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent-
teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc.



When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed
create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent
household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh?





Erections have consequences.

In Harry's case he ends up with a mess on his hands.

On 11/14/13, 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the
dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.

Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen
people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent-
teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc.



When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed
create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent
household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh?





Erections have consequences.

I know you are just being humorous, but right-wing politicians and a
couple of the right-wing "Bircher/TeaBaggers" here, such as Herring and
Bert Robbins, make sort of similar implications, sometime with what they
think is subtle language, but what they really mean is perfectly clear, e.g.

"Why should they have a child, they're poor...

"She can have her breast cancer treated at the ER...

"Why does a poor family need a car, a television set, a phone, decent
housing in a safe neighborhoor? After all, they're poor...

"Let's continue to defund or underfund public school and shift the funds
to church-related charter schools. Who does it hurt? Just poor families...

"Those poor people have a lot of nerve wanting help with putting food on
the table."

And it doesn't matter if the "poor" family has working members or
not...the hatred for them is there.



--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:48:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:41:22 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

The Pilgrims weren't the "Founding Fathers".

They were "Flounder Fathers".

Sure they were founding fathers. What would make you think they weren't?
Is there some written classification regarding what is considered
founding fathers, or who gets to make that judgment?

===

The pilgrims were here almost 150 years before the declaration of
independence, revolutionary war and the writing/ratification of the
constitution. The people behind those actions are without doubt the
founding fathers.

Where is this definition of "founding fathers"?

===

I just gave it to you. Try to pay attention in class.

Oh, so YOU get to define the phrase, eh? The pilgrims definitely had an
impact on the founding of our county. They settled the area first and
established it as viable for western civilization. They created
covenants and laws and developed the area, and usually made inroads with
the local native population.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:06:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the
dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.

Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen
people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent-
teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc.



When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed
create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent
household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh?





Erections have consequences.

From the liberal perspective, the consequence is more handouts, higher taxes, bigger government, and
more votes.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

Proves you know NOTHING about the "liberal perspective" other than what
you've learned watching FOX.

John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:41:16 -0600, Califbill wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:00:12 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:57:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote:


The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this
would be acceptable is
unfathomable.


John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable
cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal
is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit
to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally
own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun
permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home
ahead of time.

If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is
that law to be enforced?

Here's an idea:

If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his
hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison.

Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you
go to prison.



Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for
negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law.

This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to
an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door
right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and
checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in".



I am not sure I would trust just any cop who knocked on my door

When I got my original machine gun stamp I did have an undersheriff
(2d in command for Lee County) make an appointment to interview my
wife and I and look at my gun safe.

That I can understand. Personally, I think retired Army officers should
be able to mount a Ma Deuce
on their hoods just to prevent assholish driving. I suppose cops should
be able to monitor the
installation and storage of same.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

Not the officers. But the grunts are more familiar with weapons and should
have the right before some ossifer.

How about OCS graduates who've seen the best of both worlds. I could buy that!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

Still an officer.