the love of my life WOULD be able to get along with my children and they, in turn, would think he's terrific.

otherwise, he couldn't BE 'the love of my life'.

that doesn't necessarily mean that i would end the relationship but children can certainly put a damper on any romantic growth, intentional or not.

See, just because they're little doesn't mean they're stupid. I totally agree, the kiddos have insight and they know what's best for their mom or dad. Kudos, good comment.

you said it not me:
whataver

what on earth do you mean thyme is not a good "substitute"? that is ill manered according to me.. thyme can work with anything!


yeah!!

And why do you have to take my words and change them all out of proportion to what I said? I made a suggestion. I willingly state that it needs working on, and that if in the end society does not agree with it then I can accept that.

Why do you have to sit there and claim that my proposal of making people step to the bat and choose to do something for the better of the community has anything at all to do with telling them how to spend their money, how many children to have, etc etc etc.

I ask now that you step aside and stop twisting my words and trying to claim I am saying something that I am not.

Suz get outta my head, only room for one in there

But, should we demand how they spend their money?

So your answer is, WE will have the power to decide what is and is not acceptable contribution to the society.

My son just graduated high school. he wants to take a year off from school (to rest his brain lol) and work. We didn't let him work while going to school because we wanted him to concentrate on school. now if he gets at least 6 months of work behind him...he can apply to be a jailer. he wants to do that before getting a degree for law enforcement. I see nothing wrong with it or think it's anyone's business. he isn't being helped by the government so what he does (as long as legal) is no one's business.

not everyone is cut out for college (or more education) or the military. some people just want to work.

(((((((Steve, Suz, Mikey))))))) Steve, sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday, I was on the phone with Mom. There are real problems going on with my sister's azzhole husband.

I understand what you are getting at here Suze, I really do. BUT, there comes a point when somebody (normally government yes) does have to step in and say, these are the choices you have. This is because we live in a community, and due to this, we are responsible to a certain degree in providing FOR the community. That is why people live in communities rather than off by themselves, because of the mutual benefits.

However, when so many people start living in the community, drawing off the community resources (welfare in this case), and not providing something in return for the services, whether it be cash, or labor, or goods, whatever, then the community fails, and everyone suffers.

We are seeing this now, for several reasons, and not just from people refusing to work (and for the record I am sure there are more people who ARE willing to work than are not).

When this happens, people need to have a wake up call so to speak, and to be given a set choice of what to do in order to better their lives and their community. And you can only give so many choices,and when they are all refused, what do you have left? Continue letting the person receive from the community and return nothing, or make them do something productive? In the very end it comes down to giving them the choice: Live by the community standards, and be productive, or leave the community.

What we need to start doing is figure out what our standards as a community are going to be, and start enforcing them, whether it is with my idea of bringing more emphases on the military choice, or something else.

But in the end, people need to start being more productive, and contributing to society or we are ALL going to lose everything.






I am not necessarily disagreeing with some of the above. But, my problem is forcing EVERYONE to certain standards based on the actions of a few? Ok, yes, giving the relative few who may be abusing the system some "poop or get off the pot" scenario might be the right thing to do. But, then again, who and by what standards decides how the system is being abused? I'm going to use you as an example (please don't be offended, it's not my intent at all). I believe you are on disability, correct? So, let's say the "government" decides you are not truly disabled? (which btw, is not an unlikely scenario). You know you cannot work and I believe that despite your contentiousness, you are an honorable person. But, still, someone else (like now) has control of that arbitrary line. And because your neighbor decided to fake a back injury, they decide one day, because they have the power to do so, to move that line back. And you lose your benefits. Then what?

There is always going to be welfare in any society, it is the duty (I believe) for people in a community to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Better policing probably needs to be done to root out the abusers. A good well-run society understands that and provides for it. But I don't think that limiting choices for ALL based on the actions of a few is a practical OR desirable scenario.