[Ricechex]

[quote=SD Realtor]”A military academy style public school system would serve us very well, I believe.”

Brian I would definitely agree with that.

As a side note I also believe that more physical activity would improve academic achievement dramatically. It is bad enough that pretty much any normal 7 year old boy is classified as ADD cuz he cannot sit still. I think that in most cases this is simply a boy being a boy. They need to be running around. Tire them out and you find they are a hell of alot more attentive. Adding more physical activity and maybe scaling back a bit on the academics may serve to INCREASE attentiveness and the quality of what the kids learn. Just my two cents. I do like the military style idea though. Lots of physical activity and more of a focus on respect, discipline, and other intangibles that will accelerate learning in the future. [/quote]

I have 2 teacher friends, married couple. They have both been teaching for SD Unified for 10+ years. Their son was quite active, and since a child he has been enrolled in private school, because they felt he would kicked out of public school due to the low tolerance for activity. The child is now 10 years old, and does extremely well academically, as he is very bright, but still an active boy.

[Ricechex]

[quote=CA renter][quote=temeculaguy]If I was a celeb, I’d do the same thing, my hat is off to Seth. For a while many of us have talked about how being personally financially conservative is the new black. In the coming years it will outcool the green movement, seth is wise to pioneer it in the media. As far as anectdotal stories from the frontline (since many of my piggy brothers and sisters are married or shut ins, I will provide them) I can honestly say that underindulgence is all the rage in the singles scene, especially the middle aged scene. Two years ago, I was constantly apologizing for my mediocre ride and rental housing, I pondered a more age appropriate sled, at least a 5 series, probably a 7 series since I had broken 40, luckily cooler heads prevailed. Much to my suprise, the paid off sled and the lack of revolving debt or an upside down mortgage has become cool once again and I don’t see this trend reversing anytime soon. Living within your means is now sexy.

The dude rolling on 22″ rims with the notice of default in the mailbox, is now the one sitting at home wondering where those implants he paid for went. And the meek shall inherit the earth.[/quote]

I know you already know this, TG, but any man who uses these tools (flashy cars, clothing, houses, etc.) to chase women will get what he asks for.

A good woman will judge a man by his character. A good man will judge a woman in the same way.

That doesn’t mean one should be stingy once he/she finds the right partner. It just means you shouldn’t use that as bait. When you use shark bait, you usually reel-in a shark.

Glad to hear your story, TG. Hope you find a keeper. 🙂
[/quote]

WTG CA Renter. Absolutely the truth.

[Ricechex]

[quote=CA renter][quote=temeculaguy]If I was a celeb, I’d do the same thing, my hat is off to Seth. For a while many of us have talked about how being personally financially conservative is the new black. In the coming years it will outcool the green movement, seth is wise to pioneer it in the media. As far as anectdotal stories from the frontline (since many of my piggy brothers and sisters are married or shut ins, I will provide them) I can honestly say that underindulgence is all the rage in the singles scene, especially the middle aged scene. Two years ago, I was constantly apologizing for my mediocre ride and rental housing, I pondered a more age appropriate sled, at least a 5 series, probably a 7 series since I had broken 40, luckily cooler heads prevailed. Much to my suprise, the paid off sled and the lack of revolving debt or an upside down mortgage has become cool once again and I don’t see this trend reversing anytime soon. Living within your means is now sexy.

The dude rolling on 22″ rims with the notice of default in the mailbox, is now the one sitting at home wondering where those implants he paid for went. And the meek shall inherit the earth.[/quote]

I know you already know this, TG, but any man who uses these tools (flashy cars, clothing, houses, etc.) to chase women will get what he asks for.

A good woman will judge a man by his character. A good man will judge a woman in the same way.

That doesn’t mean one should be stingy once he/she finds the right partner. It just means you shouldn’t use that as bait. When you use shark bait, you usually reel-in a shark.

Glad to hear your story, TG. Hope you find a keeper. 🙂
[/quote]

WTG CA Renter. Absolutely the truth.

[Ricechex]

[quote=CA renter][quote=temeculaguy]If I was a celeb, I’d do the same thing, my hat is off to Seth. For a while many of us have talked about how being personally financially conservative is the new black. In the coming years it will outcool the green movement, seth is wise to pioneer it in the media. As far as anectdotal stories from the frontline (since many of my piggy brothers and sisters are married or shut ins, I will provide them) I can honestly say that underindulgence is all the rage in the singles scene, especially the middle aged scene. Two years ago, I was constantly apologizing for my mediocre ride and rental housing, I pondered a more age appropriate sled, at least a 5 series, probably a 7 series since I had broken 40, luckily cooler heads prevailed. Much to my suprise, the paid off sled and the lack of revolving debt or an upside down mortgage has become cool once again and I don’t see this trend reversing anytime soon. Living within your means is now sexy.

The dude rolling on 22″ rims with the notice of default in the mailbox, is now the one sitting at home wondering where those implants he paid for went. And the meek shall inherit the earth.[/quote]

I know you already know this, TG, but any man who uses these tools (flashy cars, clothing, houses, etc.) to chase women will get what he asks for.

A good woman will judge a man by his character. A good man will judge a woman in the same way.

That doesn’t mean one should be stingy once he/she finds the right partner. It just means you shouldn’t use that as bait. When you use shark bait, you usually reel-in a shark.

Glad to hear your story, TG. Hope you find a keeper. 🙂
[/quote]

WTG CA Renter. Absolutely the truth.

[Ricechex]

[quote=CA renter][quote=temeculaguy]If I was a celeb, I’d do the same thing, my hat is off to Seth. For a while many of us have talked about how being personally financially conservative is the new black. In the coming years it will outcool the green movement, seth is wise to pioneer it in the media. As far as anectdotal stories from the frontline (since many of my piggy brothers and sisters are married or shut ins, I will provide them) I can honestly say that underindulgence is all the rage in the singles scene, especially the middle aged scene. Two years ago, I was constantly apologizing for my mediocre ride and rental housing, I pondered a more age appropriate sled, at least a 5 series, probably a 7 series since I had broken 40, luckily cooler heads prevailed. Much to my suprise, the paid off sled and the lack of revolving debt or an upside down mortgage has become cool once again and I don’t see this trend reversing anytime soon. Living within your means is now sexy.

The dude rolling on 22″ rims with the notice of default in the mailbox, is now the one sitting at home wondering where those implants he paid for went. And the meek shall inherit the earth.[/quote]

I know you already know this, TG, but any man who uses these tools (flashy cars, clothing, houses, etc.) to chase women will get what he asks for.

A good woman will judge a man by his character. A good man will judge a woman in the same way.

That doesn’t mean one should be stingy once he/she finds the right partner. It just means you shouldn’t use that as bait. When you use shark bait, you usually reel-in a shark.

Glad to hear your story, TG. Hope you find a keeper. 🙂
[/quote]

WTG CA Renter. Absolutely the truth.

[Ricechex]

[quote=CA renter][quote=temeculaguy]If I was a celeb, I’d do the same thing, my hat is off to Seth. For a while many of us have talked about how being personally financially conservative is the new black. In the coming years it will outcool the green movement, seth is wise to pioneer it in the media. As far as anectdotal stories from the frontline (since many of my piggy brothers and sisters are married or shut ins, I will provide them) I can honestly say that underindulgence is all the rage in the singles scene, especially the middle aged scene. Two years ago, I was constantly apologizing for my mediocre ride and rental housing, I pondered a more age appropriate sled, at least a 5 series, probably a 7 series since I had broken 40, luckily cooler heads prevailed. Much to my suprise, the paid off sled and the lack of revolving debt or an upside down mortgage has become cool once again and I don’t see this trend reversing anytime soon. Living within your means is now sexy.

The dude rolling on 22″ rims with the notice of default in the mailbox, is now the one sitting at home wondering where those implants he paid for went. And the meek shall inherit the earth.[/quote]

I know you already know this, TG, but any man who uses these tools (flashy cars, clothing, houses, etc.) to chase women will get what he asks for.

A good woman will judge a man by his character. A good man will judge a woman in the same way.

That doesn’t mean one should be stingy once he/she finds the right partner. It just means you shouldn’t use that as bait. When you use shark bait, you usually reel-in a shark.

Glad to hear your story, TG. Hope you find a keeper. 🙂
[/quote]

WTG CA Renter. Absolutely the truth.

[Ricechex]

SD Realtor, I do not believe it a crime against humanity–I do not wish to support others that do not take action and responsibility to secure their present and future. However, this is a complex world, and one action can trigger worse conditions.

When these “used to be welfare folks” get into the “nice” neighborhoods (and I can guarantee you they will), folks will be all up in arms. Do something Mr. Government! There is child abuse! They are in my backyard! They throw trash and do drugs! Contain them! Get them out! And, either the government will do something (ie: more bonds, bailouts, taxes) and hire more police, social service employees, etc, or else they will have to re-instate welfare, admitting that it was a bad idea after all.

Though there is a relatively small percentage of welfare recipients, the havoc that a few families can create can destroy an otherwise pleasant neighborhood comprised of mostly non-welfare recipients. Imagine if they are put on the streets.

And, let us not forget one very important thing. Recipients of public services tend to be the most entitled of them all. Talk to some eligibility workers over at the County. This would eliminate their “entitlements” and once again, if there is nothing to lose, then why abide by any rules at all?

I have no idea how to cut services effectively, but this is a really bad idea. It is short sighted.

[Ricechex]

SD Realtor, I do not believe it a crime against humanity–I do not wish to support others that do not take action and responsibility to secure their present and future. However, this is a complex world, and one action can trigger worse conditions.

When these “used to be welfare folks” get into the “nice” neighborhoods (and I can guarantee you they will), folks will be all up in arms. Do something Mr. Government! There is child abuse! They are in my backyard! They throw trash and do drugs! Contain them! Get them out! And, either the government will do something (ie: more bonds, bailouts, taxes) and hire more police, social service employees, etc, or else they will have to re-instate welfare, admitting that it was a bad idea after all.

Though there is a relatively small percentage of welfare recipients, the havoc that a few families can create can destroy an otherwise pleasant neighborhood comprised of mostly non-welfare recipients. Imagine if they are put on the streets.

And, let us not forget one very important thing. Recipients of public services tend to be the most entitled of them all. Talk to some eligibility workers over at the County. This would eliminate their “entitlements” and once again, if there is nothing to lose, then why abide by any rules at all?

I have no idea how to cut services effectively, but this is a really bad idea. It is short sighted.

[Ricechex]

SD Realtor, I do not believe it a crime against humanity–I do not wish to support others that do not take action and responsibility to secure their present and future. However, this is a complex world, and one action can trigger worse conditions.

When these “used to be welfare folks” get into the “nice” neighborhoods (and I can guarantee you they will), folks will be all up in arms. Do something Mr. Government! There is child abuse! They are in my backyard! They throw trash and do drugs! Contain them! Get them out! And, either the government will do something (ie: more bonds, bailouts, taxes) and hire more police, social service employees, etc, or else they will have to re-instate welfare, admitting that it was a bad idea after all.

Though there is a relatively small percentage of welfare recipients, the havoc that a few families can create can destroy an otherwise pleasant neighborhood comprised of mostly non-welfare recipients. Imagine if they are put on the streets.

And, let us not forget one very important thing. Recipients of public services tend to be the most entitled of them all. Talk to some eligibility workers over at the County. This would eliminate their “entitlements” and once again, if there is nothing to lose, then why abide by any rules at all?

I have no idea how to cut services effectively, but this is a really bad idea. It is short sighted.

[Ricechex]

SD Realtor, I do not believe it a crime against humanity–I do not wish to support others that do not take action and responsibility to secure their present and future. However, this is a complex world, and one action can trigger worse conditions.

When these “used to be welfare folks” get into the “nice” neighborhoods (and I can guarantee you they will), folks will be all up in arms. Do something Mr. Government! There is child abuse! They are in my backyard! They throw trash and do drugs! Contain them! Get them out! And, either the government will do something (ie: more bonds, bailouts, taxes) and hire more police, social service employees, etc, or else they will have to re-instate welfare, admitting that it was a bad idea after all.

Though there is a relatively small percentage of welfare recipients, the havoc that a few families can create can destroy an otherwise pleasant neighborhood comprised of mostly non-welfare recipients. Imagine if they are put on the streets.

And, let us not forget one very important thing. Recipients of public services tend to be the most entitled of them all. Talk to some eligibility workers over at the County. This would eliminate their “entitlements” and once again, if there is nothing to lose, then why abide by any rules at all?

I have no idea how to cut services effectively, but this is a really bad idea. It is short sighted.

[Ricechex]

SD Realtor, I do not believe it a crime against humanity–I do not wish to support others that do not take action and responsibility to secure their present and future. However, this is a complex world, and one action can trigger worse conditions.

When these “used to be welfare folks” get into the “nice” neighborhoods (and I can guarantee you they will), folks will be all up in arms. Do something Mr. Government! There is child abuse! They are in my backyard! They throw trash and do drugs! Contain them! Get them out! And, either the government will do something (ie: more bonds, bailouts, taxes) and hire more police, social service employees, etc, or else they will have to re-instate welfare, admitting that it was a bad idea after all.

Though there is a relatively small percentage of welfare recipients, the havoc that a few families can create can destroy an otherwise pleasant neighborhood comprised of mostly non-welfare recipients. Imagine if they are put on the streets.

And, let us not forget one very important thing. Recipients of public services tend to be the most entitled of them all. Talk to some eligibility workers over at the County. This would eliminate their “entitlements” and once again, if there is nothing to lose, then why abide by any rules at all?

I have no idea how to cut services effectively, but this is a really bad idea. It is short sighted.

[Ricechex]

Wow. This is unbelievable, and I do not believe it will happen. We would all have to leave San Diego if we don’t live in gated communities. This would put a lot more people on the streets, with NOTHING to lose. They will be in our backyards, sleeping. They will be making more trash, parking on the street in burned out cars and living in them. They will be creating more chaos. I am not a proponent for welfare, but cutting it completely would result in a horrible backlash for the rest of us. It would be a horrifying scenario.

And, of course the solution to a problem, often creates another problem. In this case, I would suspect that we would find an increase in referrals to Child Welfare Services, thus, we would have to hire more workers, find more appropriate placements, and it would end up costing us more money. We would have to hire more police and other administrators to deal with the problem. This would actually increase government spending, make NO mistake about it.

It would be a good time to start a private security business. Perhaps, the government could start a security incentive program.

[Ricechex]

Wow. This is unbelievable, and I do not believe it will happen. We would all have to leave San Diego if we don’t live in gated communities. This would put a lot more people on the streets, with NOTHING to lose. They will be in our backyards, sleeping. They will be making more trash, parking on the street in burned out cars and living in them. They will be creating more chaos. I am not a proponent for welfare, but cutting it completely would result in a horrible backlash for the rest of us. It would be a horrifying scenario.

And, of course the solution to a problem, often creates another problem. In this case, I would suspect that we would find an increase in referrals to Child Welfare Services, thus, we would have to hire more workers, find more appropriate placements, and it would end up costing us more money. We would have to hire more police and other administrators to deal with the problem. This would actually increase government spending, make NO mistake about it.

It would be a good time to start a private security business. Perhaps, the government could start a security incentive program.

[Ricechex]

Wow. This is unbelievable, and I do not believe it will happen. We would all have to leave San Diego if we don’t live in gated communities. This would put a lot more people on the streets, with NOTHING to lose. They will be in our backyards, sleeping. They will be making more trash, parking on the street in burned out cars and living in them. They will be creating more chaos. I am not a proponent for welfare, but cutting it completely would result in a horrible backlash for the rest of us. It would be a horrifying scenario.

And, of course the solution to a problem, often creates another problem. In this case, I would suspect that we would find an increase in referrals to Child Welfare Services, thus, we would have to hire more workers, find more appropriate placements, and it would end up costing us more money. We would have to hire more police and other administrators to deal with the problem. This would actually increase government spending, make NO mistake about it.

It would be a good time to start a private security business. Perhaps, the government could start a security incentive program.

[Ricechex]

Wow. This is unbelievable, and I do not believe it will happen. We would all have to leave San Diego if we don’t live in gated communities. This would put a lot more people on the streets, with NOTHING to lose. They will be in our backyards, sleeping. They will be making more trash, parking on the street in burned out cars and living in them. They will be creating more chaos. I am not a proponent for welfare, but cutting it completely would result in a horrible backlash for the rest of us. It would be a horrifying scenario.

And, of course the solution to a problem, often creates another problem. In this case, I would suspect that we would find an increase in referrals to Child Welfare Services, thus, we would have to hire more workers, find more appropriate placements, and it would end up costing us more money. We would have to hire more police and other administrators to deal with the problem. This would actually increase government spending, make NO mistake about it.

It would be a good time to start a private security business. Perhaps, the government could start a security incentive program.

[Author]

Posts