Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 20,201 through 20,215 (of 20,215 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: When should a child be allowed to walk alone? #614362


    cinnamon… jimmyG has a point.. you were serious, weren’t you jimmy;-)

    you should let your children be alone in public when you feel they are ready to handle situations that make them uncomfortable in public. i don’t think there is a set age for that.

    children will take their cue from you… so if you show them that people in the greater world often behave in ways that aren’t appropriate in your home and that the best way to deal with those people is to ignore them, they will be ready to walk alone sooner rather than later.

    but, you knew that, didn’t you?

    in reply to: What’s with this? #614331


    perhaps coffee shops and sandwich shops with free wifi should investigate creating a wifi area with accessible plugs for those who need them. I am sure customers like sue’s husband would appreciate them.

    That might free up some area for customers who might actually like to interact to sit close enough to one another to have conversation.

    And i second the request for more non-coffee choices in coffee houses. Mexican chocolate sounds wonderful to me.. tho not so sure about the chicory…

    in reply to: What’s with this? #614323


    ok, so dirt is good for our immune systems. i’m ok with that.. i garden.

    but i don’t think standing on tables in a coffee shop to plug in your computer is a good thing. i happen to know how easy it is to fall off chairs and tables when you are reaching over your head and although i might be ok with her footprints on the table i don’t think i would be ok with her in my lap or worse when she fell.

    not to mention not wanting to be looking up her skirt or worse if i happened to be sitting next to her.

    beyond that…

    if there isn’t an easily accessible plug nearby, it is a good bet that you are expected to use your battery while availing yourself of the coffee shop’s free wifi.

    I too am tired of those whose lack of consideration places powercords where i end up tripping over them.

    in reply to: Rental House Resource #614317


    We are also a renters and to be fair i have to tell you that i just followed cinnamon’s link to affordable housing and it probably isn’t realistic.

    depending upon the size of the house and the amenities (does it have a view, is it near a park, schools, are you going to allow pets, etc>>>) rents here are higher than those posted.

    you might try housingmaps.. just put them in google. that is where i found our current rental.

    I think a lot of people who are transferring into the area use that system. It works really well… as does a good old fashioned sign.

    You might want to consider a real estate service if you aren’t going to want to manage the property yourself… they do charge a percentage of the rent as a fee, but they do most of the work screening renters and some of them even arrange repairs for you. Just check out the contracts really carefully.

    Too bad i won’t be looking for another place for at least 6 months… good luck!

    in reply to: no kids allowed #614349


    I don’t know if this policy is progressive or discriminatory, but i have to admit i will probably be taking advantage of it:)

    in reply to: Auto Body Repair Recommendations #614179


    i also recommend alki auto body. they just fixed my car from a similar encounter..

    in reply to: Let’s hear it for Sen. Clinton…or not #613696


    I just came back from listening to Madeleine Albright talk about why she supports Hilary Clinton for President and she said something that really resonated with me. She said, “i want my president to be confident but not certain.” In other words, she wants a President who doesn’t always think he/she is right and is open to adjusting his/her opinion based on current information.

    She also said that she thinks a cabinet ought to be full of diverse opinions so that a President isn’t always hearing his/her own opinions parroted back at him/her.

    She also stated that she (Madeleine Albright) thinks we should be out of Iraq.

    After hearing her speak and witnessing the humility with which she approaches the immense problems this nations faces, i have to say that i trust her judgment.

    If she believes Hilary will meet those conditions, then i think it is probably a good bet that she will. All the more reason for me to vote for her.

    in reply to: A notable book for this religion infused election season #613803


    Wes, i suspect you and i have similar beliefs… up to a point. and yes, they frame how we look at things.

    i will admit that having been raised in a church, i tend to evaluate political action from a Christian viewpoint… but not from a Christian framework. In other words, i ask myself, “was that a Christian thing to do?” … Not, “does that person frame their argument in Christian terminology”.

    When we focus so much on a candidate’s religion we focus on the latter.. how they frame their campaign promises… not whether they will behave in a Christian way.

    Answering how i define truth is even more difficult. i don’t believe that anything but personal truth exists where belief is concerned.

    and possibly not where “scientific” truth is concerned either… since scientific truth is gained by finding a way to prove what you set out to prove.

    i don’t believe you can make any decision about truth without disclosure of all of the assumptions that the truth you are evaluating was based on and finding any circumstance in which you can even discover absolute disclosure is almost impossible.

    who was it that said something to the effect that truth was hard to define but that you know it when you see it? works for me. You look at the facts and you make your best guess based on both your source material and your experience… and of course on your estimation of how much the experts you rely on understand their material.

    Whew! pretty philosophical, huh. you might want to know how i walk down the street each day trusting the sidewalk to stay put with such a slippery grasp on the truth.. and some days i wonder myself…

    But what i know is that i can trust my experience of sidewalk because i have gained it the good old fashioned way: i listened to my elders, i decided they didn’t know everything, i tested the sidewalk’s limits, i tested my own limits and i walked. And of course, i keep testing my own limits because they change and that is life…

    I can’t speak for Ken, but the problem i have with evangelicals is that they think they know or can discover by some set of their own rules what my relationship with god is and they judge me based on their assumptions. And what is worse is that they do so without speaking with me and asking questions. They base their assumptions on how i dress, how i speak (ok, i confess, i have been known to swear) and what my politics are. Like most assumptions we make about people based on superficial evidence, they are most often wrong.

    i don’t judge others because they choose or don’t choose to worship their god their way. In fact, most of the time i don’t have a clue what their personal religion is… it has often caught me unaware. Just as i am not terribly curious about race. ethnicity.. now that interests me but because of customs, not bloodlines.

    speaking of customs, i am off to hear madeleine… an interesting woman, i hope. because my priorities are with thought over appearance, i will go in jeans and a sweater… i wonder what assumptions that will create;)

    in reply to: A notable book for this religion infused election season #613797


    the problem with mixing religion with politics is that you start talking about one and end debating the other.

    there is no way to debate religion. it’s sort of like friendship. you hang out a bit, expose each other to your ideas and if something speaks to you, you delve further.

    democrats are only playing the right wing agenda game when they allow themselves to be tricked into talking religion instead of politics.

    that said, i agree, this has been a most interesting thread.

    in reply to: Seattle Freeze #614098


    jan s…

    i would be happy to go to member profiles if i could just figure out where. could you help a neighbor out and point me in the right direction:)

    and.. i can drive.

    in reply to: Seattle Freeze #614094


    being new, i won’t set a date for coffee.. but i am interested… though more for talk than board games.

    On another note: i am looking for anyone else from West Seattle who is interested in going to hear Madeleine Albright tuesday evening at town hall. any takers?

    in reply to: Let’s hear it for Sen. Clinton…or not #613694


    it’s hard, isn’t it.

    I remember Kennedy’s campaign and in spite of his charisma, how difficult that first hurdle of catholicism was to jump… and the difference between the campaign promises and the reality of his presidency. That’s the process, isn’t it.

    And now we have two candidates who would each topple further barriers… Obama and Clinton. Obama is charismatic… we want to like like him, We want him to succeed.

    I just keep remembering that is why we had 4 more years of Bush, not because America liked what he had done, but because at least half of America liked what he told us he wanted to do. They wanted him to succeed.

    Hilary isn’t so charismatic… no matter how much her policy wonks tweak her image. She is centrist, but unlike her husband, she presumably will have a congress that will back her instead of fighting every step of the way. And i think she is pragmatic which helps. She will have to fight to succeed and that can’t be a bad thing.

    On the other side, we know that incredible amounts of money and political pressure will be brought to defeat her. And we know she is far more militant than most democrats are comfortable with. she is too militant for me.

    Edwards has a great message, but he also has a wife battling breast cancer and a family to raise. Even if they are able to work around those issues, it will create a ton of stress and distraction that will make the job of president more difficult.

    Kucinich is every idealistic thinking democrat’s dream… but like most intellectual presidential hopefuls, not likely to get elected in today’s media market.

    So what’s an idealist to do?

    I can’t forget the women’s movement. Especially these days, my hormones won’t let me. Hilary is one of us.

    So, I will vote for her because she is a woman. Now, isnt’ that lame.

    But, as a woman, she will have to work harder to succeed. i want my president working very hard for me.

    She will have more scrutiny than any other president in our history and i think it is time to restore some accountability to our White House. It’s unlikely that much will slip past that kind of scrutiny.

    She understands housekeeping and it is time we had a president who was interested in the details of managing our nation. Someone who knows what it is like to juggle diverse needs and schedules every day… someone who understands that health care and health are essential to productivity… who understands that good nutrition isn’t just a goal but an investment in the future… who knows what it is like to balance egos and outcomes.

    ok, so those are campaign promises like everyone else’s.

    It’s just that i think we have a better chance of having those promises fulfilled by a woman who grew up having to battle her way to success… and i will bet my vote on it.

    in reply to: HR 888 #613681


    This is frightening. Not the he said/he said, but the idea that someone thinks it is necessary to put a house resolution like this together and that our legislators are more likely to pass it because they don’t want to seem unchristian than because they actually read it and agree with it. We are becoming too much a nation that worries about what something will look like instead of one that concerns itself with the actual facts.

    This country was settled on economic principles, not religious ones. Religious communities took advantage of the situation to resettle where they would be free of religious persecution. The excesses of some of those religious communities prior to the declaration are what guaranteed the inclusion of religious freedom as one of the basic tenants of our nation.

    “One nation under god” does not exist in our constitution… it was not assumed that every man worshiped his god the same way… thus the need for the inclusion of words on religious freedom. It is unlikely that the framers of the constitution were trying to guarantee the freedom of atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists or even Catholics as they weren’t present in large enough numbers to note. They simply realized that even Protestant Christians did not agree on how to worship their god.

    If we are to pass a resolution stating that this nation’s history has been based on religious principles on such little evidence, we might as well pass one that states that we never really intended freedom to encompass women or blacks as they weren’t mentioned in our constitution or our voting history until much later. Now that would rise some hackles.

    An educated man/woman is one who reads both sides of an argument and then reads all the references each side used. In any disagreement, by definition both sides are biased. The only way to sort through that bias and decide what you believe is though careful examination of the evidence… not the commentary.

    And dismissing an argument simply because of it’s source is equally foolish. Amazingly, intelligent comments are made on both sides every day. In these days of polarization, they are few and far between… but they are still there for those of us who like to sort through the rhetoric in search of the truth.

    gosh.. sound just like a schoolteacher, don’t i? I’m not, but I’ll post this anyway.

    thanks ken for alerting me to this.

    in reply to: Button pushing… #613611


    This thread is growing cold, but i would like to remark that beliefs are just that… personal beliefs. Any of us can believe anything we want, whether that belief is in sync with current science or not. However, we are talking about who will sit in the President’s seat and we have just had 8 years of a president who crafted American policy based on nothing more than his personal beliefs. Look where that got us. I care more what my next president will base their policy decisions upon than their personal belief system. Jimmy Carter is both Christian and baptist and i would vote for him again tomorrow because he based his decisions more on science and fact than his religious beliefs.

    in reply to: Seattle Freeze #614090


    Ok, i admit i have lived here 3 months now and have yet to make a friend… but i have to be honest, i am generally behind two very active and noisy dogs and have yet to follow up on the couple of overtures that were made before Christmas. Beyond that, i have yet to join anything except a book club… and that with my hubby… i am not making much of an effort yet.

    Having just spent the last 4 years in the twin cities, i am tickled to be back in the land of people who will actually talk with me if i initiate conversation and who aren’t too polite to answer a direct question. Freeze ? I haven’t noticed it!

Viewing 15 posts - 20,201 through 20,215 (of 20,215 total)