Lacey

Obviously the GOP stance is that all things concerning education should fall under the purview of the states. No Federal minimum standard, no Federal intrusion into education because this is a purely State issue.

So suppose you have Joe. Joe spends the first 20 years of his life living in one state. That state allows him to drop out of high school on his 16th birthday. Joe decides that he's going to do that because he has a job down at the burger joint that pays all of his bills, and he doesn't need a diploma for that job. Heck, if he sticks with this company, by the time he is 30, he'll be a manager, and those dudes are RICH.

When Joe is 20, his grandma in another state gets very ill and asks Joe to move in with her to help take care of her. Joe does, and lives with her until she dies. Grandma leaves Joe her house and Joe decides to stay in his new home state.

But the state that Joe's grandma (and now Joe) live in, requires every student to either get a diploma or stay in school til they are 18. In response, all of the local employers require a minimum of a high school diploma. Joe can't even get hired at a burger joint in his new town, but he doesn't want to move because grandma's house is here.

Now Joe can't pay his bills because he can't get a job, and it's going to take at least 6 months for him to get a GED. He ends up turning to welfare to keep his utilities paid and buy food. Welfare, as we all know, is funded by the taxpayers of the state that the recipients live in, with some federal tax money kicked in.

So whose problem is this? Joe did what his state said he had to do- went to school til he was 16. Joe didn't break any laws by moving to another state. The businesses in the second state are free to set the requirements for employment as they see fit. But the taxpayers of the second state are stuck supporting Joe while he retrains to meet a minimum standard that wasn't enforced in his home state. Should the state with the lower requirement reimburse the state that ends up carrying those people who weren't sufficiently educated enough to support themselves when they moved across state lines?

Is education really an issue that can be considered to be exclusive to each state?

Wondering if this has something to do with the ABC merger and whether I need to do something differently in order for the comments to show up?

Specifically in Sampson and or Rockingham counties?

I've got my family back that far, but we've hit a brick wall trying to nail down the parents of my GGG grandparents. GGG grandmother's obituary states that they were married in Sampson county when she was 18, which would have been around 1844, and we know that they lived in Rockingham County from at least 1860 to about 1867. I have found GGG grandfather listed as the bondsman for another couple in Rockingham County in 1846, but I can't find anything on a marriage for them in either location.

i have my suspicions about who their parents were, but I really don't have enough to confirm it yet and I haven't been able to connect with any other researchers who are currently researching those branches of the families I believe they belonged to. There seems to be a slim chance that some of his family may have been Quakers, but I'm getting nothing to indicate that hers were, and I haven't been able to turn up anything in that direction either.

Did a lot of these records get toasted during the civil war, or not maintained at all? Any other suggestions?

I've been helping a relative do some research on his family, and wee have a recording someone in his family did where his Grandmother describes having been married 4 different times between 1917-1960. Thing is, we can't find a single marriage record for the woman. Not in any of the Indiana counties that she lived in during that period, or in St. Louis, MO where she claims on the recording that at least 3 of the marriages took place.

We have located the birth records for the children that she had with the first 2 husbands, (showing they were just barely legitimate) and census records showing her last name as having been changed to the 3rd husband's name, plus her SS death record where she has husband #4's last name (plus she's buried with him)

At the time that the recording was made, I don't think anyone believed there was any reason to question her version of events, or would have even if they thought of it. Now, many years later it is a matter of curiosity for the family and no one is left alive to really get upset about whether she was telling the truth or not.

My question is this: Is there a likely database or location where these marriage records may be stored that I'm missing? i can understand not being able to find a record of her last marriage, since neither Indiana or Illinois publishes the records for marriages that took place in the 50's and 60's. Plus that one some people actually remember seeing take place, so there's no doubt it occurred. The first three marriages though we ought to be able to find, right? Is this something even worth chasing, or does it sound like maybe the marriages never actually took place?

I'm just trying to make sure that I'm not missing a resource, I'd hate to make a long trip trying to track this down in MO if the woman was simply engaging in a little revisionist's history while she delivered her memoirs.

My daughter wants to be a werewolf, and I'm assuming a scary one, not a cute one. Wondering if anyone has seen a decent one before and if so, where at?

Anyone else starting to feel like we'd be better off just splitting the US down the middle and calling it a day? Give the liberal minded people the northern half of the country, the conservatives the south, and then let everyone just pick which half they want to live in?

Divide up all the public assets and debts, split the cost of building a border fence between the two, and start over. Sure it wouldn't be perfect, but at least then each side could focus on trying to actually make it work rather than wasting all their time bickering about how they are superior to the other side.

Do you feel that collective bargaining for employees as a means to negotiate working conditions and wages should never have been allowed? Is it an unnecessary and unfair impediment to businesses trying to manage their employees effectively?

If so please explain your feelings.

No one has anything to say about IL passing a new law allowing Civil Unions to both heterosexual and homosexual partners?

Anyone know where to find a good corner shower unit in the Midwestern US? Looking for a 38-42 in neo angle or rounded front corner unit, trying to figure out what it's going to cost total to get the walls, base and doors. The home improvement sites are not very helpful, because everything either says walls sold separately, or base and doors sold separately. Seems like they would have links to show you which pieces go with which. Sales people are about as helpful, directing you to look on their website for anything you don't see in the store.

I'd just like a shower that we can install and use. Don't want anything fancy, and I'd like to not spend my kids college fund to get it!

So help me out, if you've been there and done that, let me know what you bought, where you bought it, and whether you like it now that you have it.

You do realize that one of the first things they ask for is a valid Social Security number, right? If you don't have one that can be verified, application denied. Ditto for some kind of photo ID proof of address, and about 500 other pieces of information.

I'm not saying that in the history of the welfare system there has never been someone who managed to fake their way through the system, but the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients are good old fashioned legal US residents. Even allowing for those "anchor" babies that everyone is worried about, their parents cannot get anything other than emergency medical treatment paid for for themselves. Any food stamp, TANF, WIC, or medicaid benefits that they receive for their children are based on the amount that the state determines the CHILD needs to eat, have toilet paper purchased for them, eat, or go to the doctor.

Public Aid offices are government offices. Illegal aliens as a general rule try and avoid being noticed by people who could have them deported. They are much more likely to come here, find work, and depend on help from family and friends than they are to get busy popping out a bunch of kids so that they can try to eke out a living on public assistance.

Yes, their children attend our public schools. They also pay either rent that pays the property taxes, or they pay the property taxes themselves, that helps support those schools. They pay sales tax when they purchase things, which in some states also supports the schools. If they are lucky enough to find work with an employer that doesn't just pay them under the table to avoid getting busted or paying unemployment insurance, disability insurance, or any of the other costs associated with having an employee, then they get a check and have income, SSN and other taxes withheld. Difference is that they never file to get their refund and credits back come tax time, so the government gets to keep that money.

Unless you know an illegal immigrant personally and have evidence that they are taking what is rightfully yours, you really should do your research first.

Not every crazy person is crazy all the time. They can be sane and rational when they buy the gun, then go home and lose their job, turn to and develop a taste for methamphetamines, turn their brain cells to jello, and then remember that gun they have in the closet.

Same thing with background checks. You can buy a gun at what, 18? What if you don't get around to deciding to be a violent criminal until you're 25?

What exactly is the solution for restricting gun ownership only to those persons who are sane and responsible enough to be trusted not to use them stupidly?

And yes I know the whole drunk driver comparison, spare me. I've got a better chance of avoiding a drunk driver in a 2000 pound automobile than I do a bullet fired by a nutjob whose hiding out playing GI Joe behind a tree.

Are you given a budget to work with and then tasked with the responsibility to choose the materials you will use to teach your students?

Are you given leeway to try and save money where possible, or encouraged to do so?

Is any thought given at your level on how to try and save some of the money available for future needs?

There is a law that republicans are trying to pass in KY to make passing a drug test mandatory to recieve welfare benefits.

I'm a liberal democrat and I support this. To my mind, applying for any type of financial assistance from the state is asking for a handout because you are unable to support your needs with income from work or other sources. I understand that not everyone is able to find employment and earn an income that provides for their needs, but a positive test for illegal drugs can be used by an employer to prevent you from being hired, so why shouldn't the source of income you seek in place of or to supplement earnings be allowed to make the same call?

I've posted a link to an article that includes some Democrat's opposing opinion. The only valid point that I will concede to in his argument is that legislators and government employees should also be held to the same standard as the employees of private industry. Fail a drug test and lose your job. As far as how to pay for the testing, the savings generated by not providing benefits to those not trying their hardest to support themselves will pay for that with money left over.

http://my.firedoglake.com/cranestation/2011/01/18/...

I'm for dumping anything that doesn't actually increase a child's ability to gain and retain knowledge myself. I'll leave it at that vague statement to discourage answers from being about people trying to justify the preservation of their favorite parts of their education career.

I'm interested in hearing how people think we can develop an education system that actually prepares our children to leave school and really be anything they want to be if they're willing to work for it. Isn't that what we tell our kids they have to go to school for?

1. What purpose does a 6-15 shot handgun serve to the average private citizen?

2. If it takes you 6 or more shots to stop something, are you really a good enough shot to be considered responsible?

3. How do you ensure that no one other than you gets a hold of your weapon 24 hours a day, 365 days a year?

4. If you have multiple firearms how can they be in your possession at all times since each person only has 2 hands?

5. What plan do you have for making sure that your guns never get into the hands of an irresponsible person after you die?

6. Could you swear under oath that you have never fired a weapon in an irresponsible or unlawful manner?

7. Have you ever in your life to date had to brandish or fire your weapon for the purpose of personal protection or the protection of another person?

8. If you believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to bear arms, are you prepared to serve in a state organized militia on a moments notice?

9. If the purpose of an armed public is for them to serve as a well regulated militia, then what did we form the armed forces for? The Constitution only called for the Navy, presumably to prevent the enemy from getting here so the militia wouldn't have to deal with them.

Should every student in the US be able to meet the same minimum standards by the time they complete their education? If so what should those standards be?

I feel that each student should be able to write well enough to express their opinions on 5 different topics of conversation. Someone reading what they have written should be able to summarize their opinion without the student having to correct anything that was misinterpreted verbally.

I feel that each student should be able to read well enough to read the US Constitution and understand what it means without having to have it explained to them.

I feel that each student should be able to balance a checkbook, make a budget, and calculate interest without having an app for that.

I feel that each child should have a basic understanding of the human body and the environment around them, including an understanding of how to maintain their bodies and the environment to prevent the death of themselves or the species and life forms around them.

I feel each student should have enough knowledge of each subject to allow them to move into any college level field of study they choose without needing to waste time in remedial classes to catch up. i.e. enough understanding of science to take and pass chemistry, enough understanding of math to take and pass algebra, etc.

Anyone agree or have more ideas?

I'm sure those who disagree will chime in as well.

What issues of daily life do you feel should not be subject to any intervention from a governing body and why?

What issues affecting daily life should be decided strictly on a national level and why?

Please list the issues of daily life that you feel should be controlled by state government only and why.

not because you are ineligible due your age or a felony conviction or anything, or because of a technicality like moving somewhere after the cutoff for registration, but just flat out doesn't vote because you choose not to?