If YOU are going to sing white christmas hun, then I am willing to hear it any time day or night ;-)

"the christmas shoes" is absolutely a very sad song!

I have been told there is a radio station (not sure if it is local to michigan only or not) that is playing christmas music 24/7 now.

The first thing I would do is overhaul all the government offices (federal AND STATE). I agree that the states themselves have the right to have their own laws and hire their own people for their government work, but this right does not supercede federal law, nor does it allow them to hire their friends and family, and then not enforce good work ethics and results.

some examples: make it so that the social services departments could not require their receptionists to have a social workers degree. By receptionist, I mean the ladies and gentleman that sit behind the front desk all day long answering the phones, and entering a clients information into the data-system so that when their number is called, the actual social worker is prepared. This is a basic data entry position which does not require a four year degree to perform.

ALL states would have some form of welfare to work program, in which welfare recipients were required to attend a fourty hour a week job search program, unless they could show justifiable reason as to why they couldn't attend; like a special needs family member that required they stay home no matter what (verified with a dr's written statement to this effect).
These job search programs would be internally reviewed on a quarterly basis at a minimum, and any worker found not enforcing the job search criteria (in other words, allowing the job searchers to just sit and talk all day long and NOT work towards being employed), would be first given a written reprimand, and then if it happened again in a one year time frame, fired for not doing their job.

All job searchers in the above program would be required to accept the first job they were offered, no matter what it was, unless they could prove that it would be more of a hardship on them than having no job; for example having to drive 50 miles one way, 5 days a week for minimum wage, and only getting 20 hours per week.

Employers would not be able to review your credit history in order to determine eligibility of employment, except in cases where your financial history would directly relate to the job at hand, such as a bank teller.

Landlords would not be able to review your credit history/report in aking a decision concerning renting to you. They already have laws in effect to protect them from people who do not pay their rent, it is called court and eviction, and the courts can reverse the charges so that the landlord does not have to pay a cent to evict you.

And a big one that would make a lot of people upset: their would be no more "national minority months". For example, no more National women's month, no more "black history" month" no more this type of month or that type of month; all they do is promote discrimination, and put emphasis on the differences between everyone, when we SHOULD be teaching our kids that everybody is the same and thus should be treated the same.

I think I will stop ehre thoguh I have a ot of other ideas that I would work at implenting. I know I made a lot of people upset with the last one.

And in reference to how hse may or may not have been dressed, etc. again it makes no differance. She could have been in a skimpy two piece string biking with everything left to no imagination, and it would not excuse the remarks this guy made.

And then again, maybe he did exactly what this girl accused him of, which I would find a bit scary nervous as well.

I mean come on, he comes in stares at her chest and states she should be able to go without a shirt on. Clearly he is fantasizing about something here. And even if he wasn't, this is just NOT an appropriate conversation starter with a complete stranger of the opposite sex.

From there he went on to claim he would never forget her name. as well as making a reference to a charectar in a movie that has the same name, and is the same age as this lady, that gets killed in the movie. This suggests that he is making a personal connection between her and the "murdered victim" of the movie.

If you think this isn't bad enough, he then goes on to outright say he is going to come in everyday when he knows she is working; this is AFTER he has undressed her with his eyes, and claimed she reminded him of a murdered lady (fictional though that lady was).

If I had been her, I would have politely processed him into the tanning salon, in order to keep him calm, and as soon as he was out of earshot I would have called the police. I would not have waited until later in the day.

In regards to having been arrested for disturbing the peace, eh I can understand this as a kind of warning measure to straighten his act out. Try to give the guy a chance in case he was just a bumbling fool who thought he was trying to flirt. As far as his past "arrests" were concerned he had been aqquiitted of each of them, thus they could not be held against him in this case.

In regards to husbands who pull this or even worse behavior, I totally agree the police should not look the other way for a "domestic" issue. I do not care if ithappens beteen husband and wife, parent and child, brother and brother, etc etc etc. I don't care where it happens, if you do something that would get another person arrested, then having a family connection should NOT be reason to look the other way; especially in the case of husband and wife. Way too many women who call the police to be told "it's a domestic dispute ma'am we have no real authority here" end up in the hospital or worse, because of the fact that the police do not want to handle domestic disputes.

real good post, shuld stay up at the top for everyone to have a chance to read it.

It is different in each state. I know when I was living at home and going to high school, Michigan law dictated that a parent could legally kick their 16 year old child out of the house for any reason whatsoever, and the parent is n longer responsible for that child. They (the parent) could not be held liable for neglect, and could not be held liable for their 16 and 17 year old children's actions once they kicked them out of the house.

Now, if the parents were married, then one parent alone could not do this, as the other parent had the right to NOT kick them out; but if they were divorced or seperated, then the parent with custodial guardianship could legally kick the 16 year old out for any reason and the non-custodial could only offer their house for the child. The child was not obligated to accept housing from the non-custodial either.

I do not know if it is still this way or not in Michigan, I know when last I lived there, parents could still kick troublesome teens (16 and 17) to the curb, on the basis that they could not handle them anymore.

My great Uncle did this with every single one of his sons. They hit 16, they had 24 hours to have all their possessions packed up and removed from the house along with themselves. He allowed his daughter, my cousin Kimmie, to stsy as long as she wanted to, but the boys were warned ahead of time that once they hit 16, they were no longer allowed to live at the family house.

Yes, Michigan is severely screwed up!

You are definitely not a jerk or a bum, Hun. If you were that would make me one as well as countless other past smokers who also refuse to kiss a current smoker. I have made only one exception in that policy, and she has stated that if we were ever to kiss again she owuld brush her teeth first, in respect.

Lol, at the time I have to be honest and say I didn't know I was fighting Him and I didn't care either :-(

I started out around 12 or 13, stealing them from my grandmother. After I left home for the military, I went up to about 3-4 packs a day, Newport Kings. Took me a couple go arounds but I finally put my last one down about three years ago. I always just put the pack down and never touched again for five six months at a time, even two years at one point, but something would always cause me to pick them back up, just for that one instant of "relaxation".

I can honestly say though I have not been interested in one all these years now though, and I do not even get the craving any more.

I first heard about them around 7 or 8 years ago, and saw my first one in 2002 on my way to Indiana from Hawaii. A lady was sitting in the airport with her child, reading a magazine while waiting for her flight. her child was harnassed up, and where was the handle of the harnass? Tied to the back of her seat!

I know this is only one bad example, and I agree the idea behind the harness is a good IDEA, but it is not something I would ever use, and really frown on the idea of others, though as long as the parent is still paying attention to the child, and taking care with the child, I respect others choices in using them.

was? Our parenting styles may differ as greatly as you say they do (and I am not saying they don't), but I would have to rebuke you for sure and say you weren't a great mom, but ARE a great mom! You did not stop being a great mom just because they grew up and moved out, right?

We may not agree on what's the best or shouldn't be done, but we both DO agree that we would do what we consider right and needed in order for our children to grow up and be productive members of society, conscious of others, and caring, as well as hard working and respectful of others.

I fought our Lord
done to the medley of "I fought the Law" by the Bobby Fuller Four


(a') singing hymns in the ... front pew
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won
I needed savin', though I ... knew not
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won

I used to swear and I didn't care
I'm so glad those days are through
Back then I didn't ... know the truth
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won

(instrumental break)

Hurtin' people with my ... FORKED tongue
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won

I don't miss those words and the ... hurt looks
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won

I used to swear and I didn't care
I'm so glad those days are through
I'm saved and singing in the ... front pew
I fought the Lord and the ... Lord won
I foughtthe Lord and the ... Lord won.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

Thought you might like this ;-)

I am in no way tryin to put you down, but your post is an excellent bump for my opinion and reasoning. While I understand why SOME parents would choose "the leash" I still do not agree with it under any circumstances. IMO it is demeaning, cruel, and inhumane.

Now instead of just coming in and saying this is how I feel, I also have some constructive advice for those who think that in the case of four kids (or more), it excuses the use of a leash or two; it does not. There is such a thing as a stroller, and they come in multi-seats. I have seen even one that carried four children at once, two rows of two. Our parents used strollers (and this includes single parents as well), and for the most part had no problems.

Now in the case of five or more children, my first question is how are you transporting all those children, even by yourself? Even a van will hold only so many safely. So in the event that you have too many children to feel comfortable with trying to keep an eye on them all at once while in the mall or wherever (and this is a reasonable and valid issue, I agree), then your other options would include having someone go with you to help out, or leave some/all the kids home with a sitter while you go out.

I understand a lot of people will jump, scream and shout that I am full of beeswax to even suggest not taking he kids with, but yuo know what? What's more inportant? Their safety and your mental health (knowing they are safe), or taking them with and leading them around like dogs and cats?

Aarron Schust - "Give it all away"

Enya - "trains and winter rains"

You have mail

That 2.5% tax is there for when yuo FAIL to remain healthy, or your KIDS fail to remain healthy and you HAVE to go into the hospital, whether or not you want to, or die because you are so sick.

I do not care who you are, what you do, how healthy you live, you WILL get seriously ill at one point or another, or yuor children will, it is a part of life. And for those who can not afford to pay 15k per year, or even 2500 per year, which is what I would have had to pay while working full time at walmart for insurance just for myself, at minumum wage, 2.5% is a hell of a lot more ffordable and reasonable than going with no insurance at all.

Right now, I take home just over 600 a month. Tell me how I am supposed to pay your AVERAGE insurance premium as it stands right now. Not possible!