On 11/14/2013 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.



Nothin left to do now but pick the bones and wait for the end.

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.

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.


How old were they when you abandoned them?

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"?

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.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:33:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/13/2013 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote:

iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...




Refer to John.. he has it... it's all leading to confiscation, the
desired outcome. Problem is libs don't ever compromise, they just think
they are smarter than you..

Oh, man, there goes that jawbone again!

What a childish post.



There's no way guns will ever be "confiscated" as long as the
Constitution exists.

What *will* happen over the years is a state by state tighter reign on
types of permits, etc. I suspect concealed carry permits will become
much more difficult to obtain in years to come. In this state the
standard "for all lawful purposes" reason is no longer sufficient for a
concealed carry permit in an increasing number of towns. You have to
have more of a reason. You will still get a permit, but for home
defense, hunting or target practice only and you will not be permitted
to carry a concealed, loaded firearm.


That will certainly reduce the number of firearms carried by law-abiding citizens. To say that guns
will never be confiscated as long as the Constitution exists implies that bending of the
Constitution cannot occur. We both know better than that. Britain provides an interesting example:

From: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466

"Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police
stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition
of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.

After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last
type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to
those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the
chamber.

Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the
rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by
parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on
handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a
pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and
the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to
British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street
gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred
in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove
off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.


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

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.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

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.

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?



--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

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?