[Abel-tasman] You'll forget what 'hard to reach' means with just one use

[Hurricane Mop Spins]

Do you know what bacteria and germs are on your old mop?

http://www.moskowlatecambon.us/3134/153/335/1276/2691.10tt62883642AAF11.php





Unsub- http://www.moskowlatecambon.us/3134/153/335/1276/2691.10tt62883642AAF12.html












he government estimates 
are correct, that leaves billions of barrels of oil and trillions more 
cubic feet of natural gas left for the taking.Thats good news for 
North Dakota -- a state thats already reaped big benefits from the 
oil boom and has one of the strongest state economies in the 
country coupled with an exceptionally low unemployment rate. Tax revenues 
from natural gas and oil hit $1 billion last year in North 
Dakota and the state is on track to double that number next 
year. Republican Sen. John Hoeven believes numbers from the new USGS survey 
will draw even more developers to the area.This will mean a lot 
of jobs, he told FoxNews.com. Financially we are already very strong, we 
have no debt, but this will mean a lot more. Stores, restaurants, 
movie theaters  well have to build and well have to hire 
workers.The competition to court employees is already on at the McDonalds 
in Dickinson, N.D. where prospective hires are being lured in with $300 
signing bonuses, Hoeven said.Calls to McDonalds Corp. for comment were not 
immediately returned. Some environmental experts like John Harju, associate 
director for research with the Energy and Environmental Research Center 
at the University of North Dakota, believe the possibilities are even greater 
than what the government forecasts.Like any of these USGS estimates, think 
of them as a milemarker thats well behind you in the rearview 
mirror, he told the Grand Forks Herald in North Dakota.S
uffer financial catastrophe upon divorce, and that 
the lower-earning spouse and stay-at-home parent will not be financially 
punished. Floridians have relied on this system post-divorce and planned 
their lives accordingly."The proposed law also would have set limits on 
the amount of alimony and how long one would receive financial support 
from an ex-spouse.The bill would have made it harder to get alimony 
in short-term marriages. And it would have prevented alimony payments from 
lasting longer than one-half of the length of the marriage.It also would 
have required judges to give divorced parents equal custody of their children 
absent extraordinary circumstances."I'm actually surprised," said Jason 
Marks, a divorce attorney in Miami, about the veto. The bill had 
passed the House 85-31, with members of both parties crossing over. The 
Senate approved it 29-11."My assumption is, you haven't heard the last of 
it," Marks said. "Most family law practitioners will agree that uniformity 
in determination of alimony is a good thing."The bill said that in 
a short-term marriage, defined as less than 11 years, the assumption is 
that alimony would not be awarded. If alimony were granted, it would 
not be more than 25 percent of the ex-spouse's gross income.For marriages 
that last between 11 and 20 years, there's no assumption either way 
in the bill, but alimony would not have amounted to more than 
35 percent of the ex-spouse's gross income.And in marria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://post.in-mind.de/pipermail/abel-tasman/attachments/20131119/d6bad2e2/attachment-0001.htm