Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Government insanity (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=401290)

  • Sep 30, 2009, 07:59 AM
    ETWolverine
    Government insanity
    Ahhh... our ever-efficient government strikes again.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/..._backlash_mich

    Quote:

    State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids

    By JAMES PRICHARD, Associated Press Writer James Prichard, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 29, 7:23 pm ET

    IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.

    Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers.

    "I was freaked out. I was blown away," she said. "I got on the phone immediately, called my husband, then I called all the girls" — that is, the mothers whose kids she watches — "every one of them."

    Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family.

    On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said.

    "Being a good neighbor means helping your neighbors who are in need," Ahmed said in a written statement. "This could be as simple as providing a cup of sugar, monitoring their house while they're on vacation or making sure their children are safe while they wait for the school bus."

    Snyder learned that the agency was responding to a neighbor's complaint.

    Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said the agency was following standard procedure in its response. "But we feel this (law) really gets in the way of common sense," Boyd said.

    "We want to protect kids, but the law needs to be reasonable," she said. "When the governor learned of this, she acted quickly and called the director personally to ask him to intervene."

    State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland, said he was working to draft legislation that would exempt situations like Snyder's from coverage under Michigan's current day care regulations.

    The bill will make it clear that people who aren't in business as day care providers don't need to be licensed, Calley said.

    "These are just kids that wait for the bus every morning," he said. "This is not a day care."

    Snyder, 35, lives in a rural subdivision in Barry County's Irving Township about 25 miles southeast of Grand Rapids. Her tidy, comfortable three-bedroom home is a designated school bus stop. The three neighbor children she watched — plus Snyder's first-grader, Grace — attend school about six miles away in Middleville.

    Snyder said she started watching the other children this school year to help her friends; they often baby-sit for each other during evenings and weekends.

    After receiving the state agency's letter, she said she called the agency and tried to explain that she wasn't running a day care center or accepting money from her friends.

    Under state law, no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers. Snyder said she stopped watching the other children immediately after receiving the letter, which was well within the four-week period.

    "I've lived in this community for 35 years and everyone I know has done some form of this," said Francie Brummel, 42, who would drop off her second-grade son, Colson, before heading to her job as deputy treasurer of the nearby city of Hastings.

    Other moms say they regularly deal with similar situations.

    Amy Cowan, 34, of Grosse Pointe Farms, a Detroit suburb, said she often takes turns with her sister, neighbor and friend watching each other's children.

    "The worst part of this whole thing, with the state of the economy ... two parents have to work," said Cowan, a corporate sales representative with a 5-year-old son and 11-month-old daughter. "When you throw in the fact that the state is getting involved, it gives women a hard time for going back to work.

    "I applaud the lady who takes in her neighbors' kids while they're waiting for the bus. She's enabling her peers to go to work and get a paycheck. The state should be thankful for that."

    Amy Maciaszek, 42, of McHenry, Ill., who works in direct sales, said she believes the state agency was "trying to be overprotective."

    "I think it does take a village and that's the best way," said Maciaszek, who has a 6-year-old boy and twin 3-year-old daughters. "Unfortunately you do have to be careful about that. These mothers are trying to do the right thing."

    ___ Associated Press writers Randi Goldberg Berris and David Runk in Detroit and Kathy Barks Hoffman in Lansing, Mich. contributed to this report.
    A couple of questions.

    1) Who is the schmuck that complained that his neighbor was watching other people's kids? I want to find that idiot and just smack him/her upside the head.

    2) Seeing this example of how government bureaucrats seem to be able to only operate according to "stadard procedure" and can't seem to think for themselves, do we really want that type of bureaucrat in charge of any part of our lives, much less making "decisions" about our health care? Seems to me that government bureaucrats have their common sense and critical thinking skills removed upon beginning employment within the government.

    Comments?
  • Sep 30, 2009, 08:27 AM
    tomder55

    The Headline should read NANNYState to Mom...

    Trade associations ,Guilds ,licensing and other credentialisms all have traditionally been used to restrict the number of people providing services to inflate fees associated with the "trade" . It is a form of protectionism... and in this case it has nothing to do with protecting the children. It's the Nanny State protecting it's turf.

    '' If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.'' Milton Friedman
  • Sep 30, 2009, 08:59 AM
    speechlesstx

    If you ask me all these child protective services have way too much power anyway. I realize the importance of such agencies but they're out of hand, they can basically do anything they want.

    My precious mom would have probably been jailed if things were like this 30 years ago, she watched everyone's kids and did a damn sight better than any daycare.

    I'm curious though, what would Hillary say about the lady's comment that "it does take a village" in this area?
  • Sep 30, 2009, 12:54 PM
    inthebox

    So much for "it takes a village,"... maybe that should be it takes the state.

    When I was about 10, I was bicycling, having graduated from big wheels, in the cul-de-sac where I grew up. I fell off the bike, hit my head and just started bleeding etc.. My neighbors mom ran out picked me up and carried me home to my mom, who cleaned, my wound, and then took me next door to have my aunt, an obstetrician, stitch up my head on their kitchen table.

    What would have happened to me if every one needed state approval to do what they did?


    G&P
  • Sep 30, 2009, 12:58 PM
    earl237
    Nanny-statism is ridiculous. I grew up in the 80s and no one wore bike helmets, seat belts were optional, we rode in the backs of pickup trucks and we went out past dark alone without thinking that a potential pedophile was lurking around every corner. Being cautious is good but overdoing it is just as harmful as being careless. I wish we could turn back the clock.
  • Oct 5, 2009, 10:32 AM
    speechlesstx

    Elliot, Illinois has the answer to people providing some type of care in their homes, unionize them all.
  • Oct 5, 2009, 04:40 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Ahhh... our ever-efficient government strikes again.

    State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids - Yahoo! News



    A couple of questions.

    1) Who is the schmuck that complained that his neighbor was watching other people's kids? I want to find that idiot and just smack him/her upside the head.

    2) Seeing this example of how government bureaucrats seem to be able to only operate according to "stadard procedure" and can't seem to think for themselves, do we really want that type of bureaucrat in charge of any part of our lives, much less making "decisions" about our health care? Seems to me that government bureaucrats have their common sense and critical thinking skills removed upon beginning employment within the government.

    Comments?

    Ever heard of child protection? You know government sees this as their thing
  • Oct 6, 2009, 07:53 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    ever heard of child protection? you know government sees this as their thing

    Yes, I know, that's the problem. They think it's their thing, and they employ people with no ability to use reason or critical thinking skills to do it. That is EXACTLY the problem.
  • Oct 6, 2009, 08:21 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Government insanity.....Comments?

    Hello Elliot:

    Of course, I have a comment...

    I can't help but notice that you left off a LARGE part of government in your diatribe...

    You don't think it's insane for the government to torture in your name, to listen to your phone calls and read your mail WITHOUT a warrant, to spirit people off the streets and render them off to some foreign land for indefinite imprisonment... You don't think THOSE things are insane at all.

    I do.

    So clearly, it's not "government insanity" that you don't like. It's simply a SEGMENT of the government that you don't like... The OTHER segment is just fine with you...

    So, as much as you pretend to dislike government, you're really a lover of government, aren't you? Actually, you're quite LIBERAL in that regard!

    excon
  • Oct 6, 2009, 11:43 AM
    ETWolverine

    Actually, I'd prefer to be doing the interrogating myself. But I don't think the government is going to let me do it. So I have to trust THEM to do it. I don't have a choice in the matter.

    More seriously, though...

    ... the other part of the argument, as I have pointed out in the past, is that the Constitution specifically gives the government the power and responsibility to run wars, maintain security and keep the peace... as well as to maintain roadways, infrastructure, the mail system, etc.

    The Constitution does NOT give the government the power to be a nanny state, determine how much people can be paid for their work, etc.

    So yes, I support the parts of the Government that are mandated by the Constitution, and I am against the parts of the government that are NOT mandated by the Constitution.

    So yes, I support the military, the police, the CIA and the FBI, while being against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the NEA and any other non-constitutional part of the government.

    You do remember the Constitution, don't you?

    Probably not.

    That's OK, I'll keep reminding you.

    Elliot
  • Oct 6, 2009, 02:14 PM
    twinkiedooter

    Probably the snitch who turned in this lady ran a day care center and was miffed that she was losing money! Betcha!

    Years ago, when child snatchers were not rife in America, you could leave your kids at bus stops by themselves, or leave them to come home to an empty house after school. Now, the whole world has changed. Child snatching is rife, children get snatched on their way to and from school all the time, and children get taken from their own yards in broad daylight! At least that lady was trying to do something in her own neighborhood. I laud her for that. Too bad more responsible mothers aren't doing the same thing. Do you have any idea just how much it costs to park at kid at daycare for before school and after school care? Plenty. That's how much. If both parents have to go to work just to make ends meet at home that extra "park the kids" money certainly adds up especially if you have more than one kid to "park". Try making a living when all your money goes for "parking fees" each week!!
  • Oct 7, 2009, 10:07 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by twinkiedooter View Post
    Probably the snitch who turned in this lady ran a day care center and was miffed that she was losing money!! Betcha!!

    Years ago, when child snatchers were not rife in America, you could leave your kids at bus stops by themselves, or leave them to come home to an empty house after school. Now, the whole world has changed. Child snatching is rife, children get snatched on their way to and from school all the time, and children get taken from their own yards in broad daylight!! At least that lady was trying to do something in her own neighborhood. I laud her for that. Too bad more responsible mothers aren't doing the same thing. Do you have any idea just how much it costs to park at kid at daycare for before school and after school care? Plenty. That's how much. If both parents have to go to work just to make ends meet at home that extra "park the kids" money certainly adds up especially if you have more than one kid to "park". Try making a living when all your money goes for "parking fees" each week!!!

    Yep. And then the government, which claims to be for the "little guy" goes and does something stupid like this to make it harder for the little guy to get by.

    BTW, why have you chosen Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramírez (Sean Connery's character in The Highlander movies) as your avatar? Good picture, but does it have any significance?

    Elliot
  • Oct 7, 2009, 08:21 PM
    paraclete
    Here's a thought, you could switch these people to regulating health care, now they would really do a good job providing they had good regulations, after all what it takes is someone with no imagination?
  • Oct 8, 2009, 07:32 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    here's a thought, you could switch these people to regulating health care, now they would really do a good job providing they had good regulations, afterall what it takes is someone with no imagination?

    Yep... healthcare as run by people with the competence of the DMV, the empathy of the IRS, and the financial management skills of the USPS.

    Great idea, Clete.
  • Oct 9, 2009, 04:43 PM
    galveston

    May I throw something else into this mix? We are talking about govt, right?

    I don't think it is possible for the leftists to be so stupid as to destroy this country as a free prosperous country.

    So I have to conclude that what they are doing is deliberate and planned.

    Now they have an ally in the White House, who has appointed these flaming red revolutionaries of the 60's to positions of power in his administration.

    This is no accident either.

    Consider the fact that the people most eager to destroy us (western civilization) are Muslims. (Not every Muslim, of course!)

    What better way than to have one of their own in the WH?

    I think Obama's conversion to Christianity was contrived to make his political aspirations possible.

    After all, he has lied about so many other things, why should we believe him on this subject?

    Did not Khadafy all him "our son"? And he is not alone among Muslims who think Obama is one of them.

    I know it is politically incorrect to say this, but then, I have never been PC anyway.
  • Oct 9, 2009, 04:54 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by twinkiedooter View Post
    children get taken from their own yards in broad daylight!!

    Not nearly as often as you think...

    I suspect the mom was watching the kids to protect them from each other, not from stranger danger.
  • Oct 10, 2009, 11:50 PM
    chrisbosco
    Wolverine,
    Let me understand your position. You agree that the government has.. "the power and responsibility to run wars, maintain security and keep the peace... as well as to maintain roadways, infrastructure, the mail system, etc." but you don NOT believe the government (BY and FOR the PEOPLE - remember that, in the Constitution?) should be used to ensure the physical health of its citizens, protect the environment they live in, protect them from the unscrupulous manipulation of the powerful for their own gain, or provide for them an equitable means of educating their children?
    In your world, I guess we should all "be responsible" for our own needs, and the government should stay out of our lives - unless of course, its to enable those of us with power to keep and defend the privileges of that power at the expense of the weak. That about sum it up?

    What a guy...
    ________________________________________________

    I'd love to meet one person who expects others to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" who has actually done it..
  • Oct 10, 2009, 11:57 PM
    chrisbosco
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by galveston View Post
    May I throw something else into this mix? We are talking about govt, right?

    I don't think it is possible for the leftists to be so stupid as to destroy this country as a free prosperous country.

    So I have to conclude that what they are doing is deliberate and planned.

    Now they have an ally in the White House, who has appointed these flaming red revolutionaries of the 60's to positions of power in his administration.

    This is no accident either.

    Consider the fact that the people most eager to destroy us (western civilization) are Muslims. (Not every Muslim, of course!)

    What better way than to have one of their own in the WH?

    I think Obama's conversion to Christianity was contrived to make his political aspirations possible.

    After all, he has lied about so many other things, why should we believe him on this subject?

    Did not Khadafy all him "our son"? And he is not alone among Muslims who think Obama is one of them.

    I know it is politically incorrect to say this, but then, I have never been pc anyway.


    Galveston,

    You shouldn't worry about being politically correct, you should worry about being an idiot!

    Make the people who tell you this crap PROVE IT! Until you do you will continue to look like a fool when you repeat it. You don't realize that the rest of us know the difference!
  • Oct 11, 2009, 12:15 AM
    chrisbosco
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Ahhh... our ever-efficient government strikes again.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/..._backlash_mich



    A couple of questions.

    1) Who is the schmuck that complained that his neighbor was watching other people's kids? I want to find that idiot and just smack him/her upside the head.

    2) Seeing this example of how government bureaucrats seem to be able to only operate according to "stadard procedure" and can't seem to think for themselves, do we really want that type of bureaucrat in charge of any part of our lives, much less making "decisions" about our health care? Seems to me that government bureaucrats have their common sense and critical thinking skills removed upon beginning employment within the government.

    Comments?

    It's easy to take a ridiculous example like this and make hay out of it, but maybe we should think about why these rules and regulations everyone hates so much are made in the first place. What if that woman watching those children was not a personal friend of the kids' moms, but just some resident looking to make a few bucks watching the kids. The kids moms are stressed trying to get to their jobs to pay the adjustable rate mortgage they were sold by the friendly mortgage broker that just reset at 18%, so they're grateful to know this lady will watch their kids. And suppose that woman had a pervert for a husband/son/cousin/uncle/boyfriend.. And suppose the big, bad government got a call about THAT woman? Would you criticize them for making sure the kids were in the company of safe adults when not with their parents? Or would you criticize them for NOT looking into the identities of this "kid-watchers" after you see the report on the local news about the pervert relative of the nice lady who watches the kids...
    It's like everyone who hates the cops... until they hear a noise in their backyard! Or the IRS, until their refund check comes. Or the "government," until they're 65 and need medical care.
    Criticize, but be fair...
  • Oct 11, 2009, 12:17 AM
    chrisbosco

    'night all.
  • Oct 11, 2009, 02:52 AM
    tomder55
    Chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

    Or as James Madison said it much better than I
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

    But a clear examination of the expenditures of the Federal Government ,and it's future liabilities shows it is dominated by expenditures related to benevolence.
  • Oct 11, 2009, 07:35 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

    Hello tom:

    Nor is the cop part of government which you and Elliot just adore. They're UNCONSTITUTIONALLY reading our mail, "for our own good". We are the worlds largest jailer, "for our own good". They're torturing people, in our names "for our own good". They are making war on people who never attacked us, "for our own good". Personally, I think attacking people who posed NO THREAT to us, was pretty INSANE - no?

    You and your friend the Wolverine, can see the Constitutionality in THOSE things, but you're blind when it comes to the Constitutionality of what really might be "for our own good".

    Chris, you are right, right, right... The wingers here are wrong, wrong, wrong, as you so succinctly pointed out.

    excon
  • Oct 11, 2009, 12:31 PM
    chrisbosco
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

    Or as James Madison said it much better than I
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

    But a clear examination of the expenditures of the Federal Government ,and it's future liabilities shows it is dominated by expenditures related to benevolence.

    Sorry for paraphrasing about We the People, I thought I'd made my point.

    The preamble actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    What part of health care for its citizens and proper education and fair and equal treatment under the law is incompatible with the efforts of our forefathers to "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?"

    As for our future expenditures being dominated be a relation to benevolence, what's wrong with benevolence? What's the purpose of being a United States if not to be benevolent to ourselves? Not the wealthy and powerful ourselves, the ALL OF US ourselves? For that matter, what is the largest single future expenditure by our federal government. Is it not defense spending? Is that benevolent spending? Is military power more important than a healthy, tranquil, justly treated population? I sure hope not...
  • Oct 12, 2009, 04:55 AM
    tomder55
    Take benevolence from your own pocket . There is no virtue if it is compelled . Compelled benevolence is pure and simple theft.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 05:38 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chrisbosco View Post
    Sorry for paraphrasing about We the People, I thought I'd made my point.

    The preamble actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    What part of health care for its citizens and proper education and fair and equal treatment under the law is incompatible with the efforts of our forefathers to "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?"

    As for our future expenditures being dominated be a relation to benevolence, what's wrong with benevolence? What's the purpose of being a United States if not to be benevolent to ourselves? Not the wealthy and powerful ourselves, the ALL OF US ourselves? For that matter, what is the largest single future expenditure by our federal government. Is it not defense spending? Is that benevolent spending? Is military power more important than a healthy, tranquil, justly treated population? I sure hope not...

    You made and interesting quote there "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?" I wonder what part of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty isn't associated with ensuring the health and well being of all citizens. What exactly are the blessings of liberty if not to live a secure life in good health? It is strange that there are those who rely on that constitution for their protection but would deny its blessings to others. I think there might be a crack in the liberty bell
  • Oct 12, 2009, 06:07 AM
    tomder55

    Madison in Federalist 45 made it very clear that decisions regarding the general welfare was STATE and not Federal Govenment's perusal . The powers of the Federal Government were few and enumerated .

    Quote:

    The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.
    Madison also said "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one".

    Indeed. What everyone here who argues for massive govt. welfare is actually arguing for is throwing the Cosntitution in the scrapper and fundamentally changing the contract between the people and the national government .
  • Oct 12, 2009, 06:29 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Not nearly as often as you think............

    I suspect the mom was watching the kids to protect them from each other, not from stranger danger.

    To protect them from each other? Read the article, this is a mom helping her friends out by watching them - keeping them safe from whatever danger - so the parents can go to work while the kids wait for the bus.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 08:33 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    To protect them from each other? Read the article, this is a mom helping her friends out by watching them - keeping them safe from whatever danger - so the parents can go to work while the kids wait for the bus.

    I read the article. I'm a mom, have babysat lots and lots of kids since I was 15, and stick to my story. Those kids are in more danger from doing stupid things with and to each other than they are from "whatever danger," etc. She's being more of a behavior monitor than anything.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 08:49 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Indeed. What everyone here who argues for massive govt. welfare is actually arguing for is throwing the Cosntitution in the scrapper and fundamentally changing the contract between the people and the national government .

    Hello again, tom:

    That would be so, if that's what we're arguing for... But, we're not. It's your use of the word "massive" that just isn't so. If you wanted to discuss the plan as it really is, we could.. But, it's been evident from the git go, that you, along with your Fox noise machine, want to inflame the issue, and NOT discuss it...

    I suppose that would be because if you REALLY debated what's really being considered, you'd LOSE in a heartbeat.

    excon

    PS> Why is it, that you have no objection to MASSIVE government handouts to business?? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE increase in police power the Patriot Act gave the government?? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE footprint this country is taking in the Middle East?

    I know why. That's because you're very selective about WHICH massive government program you support. Some of 'em, you think are pretty cool, doncha?
  • Oct 12, 2009, 08:57 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    She's being more of a behavior monitor than anything.

    You're seriously serious? You can think of no dangers of a child being left alone at a bus stop for an hour besides "doing stupid things." Remind me not to ask you to babysit, I'd want someone with a much more developed understanding of keeping my children safe.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 09:13 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    You're seriously serious? You can think of no dangers of a child being left alone at a bus stop for an hour besides "doing stupid things." Remind me not to ask you to babysit, I'd want someone with a much more developed understanding of keeping my children safe.

    Good grief! You must be male.

    Have you ever ridden a school bus that picks up in a subdivision or even rural area? The bus doesn't stop at every house. There are designated pick-up places. Children from various homes meet in those places to wait for the bus. Rare is a child waiting alone. Children standing around together for an hour get bored and can easily get into trouble.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 09:46 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Good grief! You must be male.

    What does that have to do with anything?

    Quote:

    Have you ever ridden a school bus that picks up in a subdivision or even rural area? The bus doesn't stop at every house. There are designated pick-up places. Children from various homes meet in those places to wait for the bus. Rare is a child waiting alone. Children standing around together for an hour get bored and can easily get into trouble.
    Never said they couldn't get bored and get into trouble, but I guarantee those parents first concern is not their children being "bored." That's something I would expect a dad might think of first, but not a mom. Yeah, I don't want to leave my kids at a bus stop for an hour because they might get bored. Good grief indeed.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 10:44 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    What does that have to do with anything?

    Your reasoning.
    Quote:

    Never said they couldn't get bored and get into trouble, but I guarantee those parents first concern is not their children being "bored."
    I'm tempted to call her and find out. Bored kids dare each other to do stupid things like dash across the road in front of an approaching car, several gang up on one, sticks or stones get picked up and thrown first at road signs or tree trunks and then at each other... kids have very fertile imaginations.

    I looked up the demographics of the township she lives in -- primarily white (non-Hispanic), German or Dutch heritage, high school grads who work in construction or office jobs, one or two kids per family that are in primary or middle school. If they were on the south side of Chicago, I'd worry about stranger danger and murder and kidnapping, but not in Irving Township. Look at the photo that accompanies the article. She isn't standing there with a gun, but with her arms crossed across her chest, watching them carefully as they hang out.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 11:01 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Your reasoning.

    I just wanted to note that it was you that made this a gender thing by insulting men, and yes I am male. My gender has nothing to do with this though I seem to have more mom instinct on it than you do.

    Quote:

    I'm tempted to call her and find out.
    By all means do.

    Quote:

    Bored kids dare each other to do stupid things like dash across the road in front of an approaching car, several gang up on one, sticks or stones get picked up and thrown first at road signs or tree trunks and then at each other... kids have very fertile imaginations.
    Duh? And these parents want to keep their kids safe, whatever the danger.

    Quote:

    If they were on the south side of Chicago, I'd worry about stranger danger and murder and kidnapping, but not in Irving Township.
    And I used to not worry about my parents being kidnapped and robbed living just outside of Duke, OK (pop. 400) but they were.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 11:04 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    And these parents want to keep their kids safe, whatever the danger.

    I never said they didn't want to keep them safe. Glad you came around to my way of thinking. (And you insulted me first.)
  • Oct 12, 2009, 11:10 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    I never said they didn't want to keep them safe.

    Always moving the goalpost.

    Quote:

    Glad you came around to my way of thinking.
    It appears to be the other way around.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 11:22 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Always moving the goalpost.

    I said "safe from each other."

    Men hate to lose, don't they.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 01:28 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    I said "safe from each other."

    Yeah, "to protect them from each other." As in you were dismissing Twinkie's concern on kids being snatched. I'm telling you those parents are thinking about a lot more than protecting the kids from each other... Twinkie's point was relevant.

    Quote:

    Men hate to lose, don't they.
    Apparently not as much as you do, I've been consistent.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 01:53 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Yeah, "to protect them from each other." As in you were dismissing Twinkie's concern on kids being snatched. I'm telling you those parents are thinking about a lot more than protecting the kids from each other... Twinkie's point was relevant.[

    Kids don't get snatched, especially in rural areas of Michigan. Child snatchings by strangers are rare. If anyone snatches, it's the non-custodial parent, not some stranger. Studies will support me on this.
    Quote:

    I've been consistent.
    We both have, but I strongly disagree with you.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 02:37 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Kids don't get snatched, especially in rural areas of Michigan.

    And retired parents don't get kidnapped and robbed in Duke, OK... or did you miss that?

    Quote:

    Child snatchings by strangers are rare. If anyone snatches, it's the non-custodial parent, not some stranger. Studies will support me on this.
    And that makes a difference on my point... how? If anything it makes it stronger. All I'm saying is you were dismissive of Twinkie's point which is relevant. Parents, educators, day cares, church nurseries... and child protective services are much more concerned with the overall safety of the child. The dangers of sexual predators and snatchings by whoever are much more of a concern to them than you want to acknowledge for some strange reason.

    Quote:

    We both have, but I strongly disagree with you.
    Hey, if you think it's all about keeping little Johnny from getting bored then whatever, I give those parents much more credit than that.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:02 PM.