With both of my children I worked right up until the day when it was "time." In fact, with Cameron, I worked a double the day before! I had 17 days off with her bc at the time I was waiting tables. With Anthony I had 8 weeks of paid time off bc I had saved up my vacation days. I didn't get a maternity leave, I saved and saved and prepared and prepared so that I could be with him. When my kids are sick, yes I am the one that stays home with them bc I am their mother, but I also have benefits with my job, sick days, personal days, vacation days, etc. My children will always come before work although I know I must have a paycheck to support them but it all balances out quite nicely for me. I am lucky, I work hard and I reap the benefits.
Insurance rates are going to go up regardless and insurance companies are going to use any excuse they can to blame the rise.
A few years ago, I paid zilch for health insurance. I am a State employee through the school system. Now I pay four times zilch out of my paycheck plus higher co-pays, higher prescription costs, and now I have a deductible if I ever have to go in the hospital!!!! I've NEVER had a deductible before!!! But there is nothing I can do about it, I pay it and I work and I take care of my children.
Did I have sex before marriage? Absoultely. Do I regret it, not really, well some of it.
I hate to complain and I really don't have anything to complain about but I just want to make sure that you know Microwave, why I choose to stay home with my children when they are sick and that you are not paying for it when I do and you are also not paying for me having had a maternity leave. I earned it and I paid for it.
Carry on.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
1. Why should a teacher be held responsible for what Muslim children call a toy? As I understand it, she didn't propose the candidates, she didn't cast a vote, she just acted as a returning officer. If the prophet's name is so sacred, shouldn't 30 sets of parents be currently facing the same punishment for failing to pass on Muslim law to their children?
2. If it's such a sacred name, why the fuck are so many people called it? One kid was quoted as saying "I voted for Mohammed as that's my name"...
2. If it's such a sacred name, why the fuck are so many people called it? One kid was quoted as saying "I voted for Mohammed as that's my name"...
Magical,
I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to depart on the attitude you seem to be taking with all Muslims. You seem to forget that what we see is the result of radical Islamics (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran....all are run by hard line radical Islamic governments). These no more characterize all of Islam than the Jerry Farwells of the world represent Christianity. Just like any other religion, it has it's nuts. Unfortunately, just like Christianity, it's the loudest nuts that get all of the attention. However, it is inherently flawed to assume that all followers of that general religion are characterized by the nuts. I'd argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general, but I'd probably be massacred by the religious people on the thread.
I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to depart on the attitude you seem to be taking with all Muslims. You seem to forget that what we see is the result of radical Islamics (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran....all are run by hard line radical Islamic governments). These no more characterize all of Islam than the Jerry Farwells of the world represent Christianity. Just like any other religion, it has it's nuts. Unfortunately, just like Christianity, it's the loudest nuts that get all of the attention. However, it is inherently flawed to assume that all followers of that general religion are characterized by the nuts. I'd argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general, but I'd probably be massacred by the religious people on the thread.
Send in the RAF and bomb 'em back to the Stone Age.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bob The Shrek wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Send in the RAF and bomb 'em back to the Stone Age.[/QUOTE]
But I'm against wars... :(
Oh, wait. You must be talking about the other RAF...
But I'm against wars... :(
Oh, wait. You must be talking about the other RAF...
You've got to hand it to those kids for playing the ultimate practical joke on their teacher. In my day we had to make do with hiding their blackboard duster or sticking a drawing pin on their seat, but these little scamps managed to get their teacher thrown in prison. My faith in the youth of today has been restored.
fatty.
fatty.
So what is so wrong in calling a teddy after the world's greatest boxer anyway?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So if I'm against woman rights, abortion, gay marriage, sex before marriage, television then I'm simply "old fashioned"?
[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha. You are just kiding, right? I hope that you are.
[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha. You are just kiding, right? I hope that you are.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Magical,
I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to depart on the attitude you seem to be taking with all Muslims. You seem to forget that what we see is the result of radical Islamics (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran....all are run by hard line radical Islamic governments). These no more characterize all of Islam than the Jerry Farwells of the world represent Christianity. Just like any other religion, it has it's nuts. Unfortunately, just like Christianity, it's the loudest nuts that get all of the attention. However, it is inherently flawed to assume that all followers of that general religion are characterized by the nuts. I'd argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general, but I'd probably be massacred by the religious people on the thread.
[/QUOTE]
I should clarify that the attitude I’ve taken here is the same attitude I’ve taken with every other organized religious sect.
In this case, my frustration has turned to utter disgust because, while you’re absolutely correct that the loudest nuts get all the attention, it’s when those nuts constantly ‘hijack’ a religion – as we’ve been told is happening by more than a few NON-muslims – that I’d think the quiet ones ought to speak up. If they don’t, then they leave us to form our own conclusions.
My conclusion is this – when anyone demands the death or torture of someone else in the name of their god, and those of the same belief don’t stand up and demand calm and logic just as loudly, then the entire ‘faith’ looses what little credibility I’d given it in the first place. AND when everyone has to tip-toe around, watch their words and forever kowtow for fear of reprisals (the article I posted quotes an official as saying, ‘respect for islam runs deep in Britain’ as if to soften the blow of his disagreement with islam’s punishments) it comes off as subservient and fearful. Two reactions not unrelated to religion in general.
And I WILL argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general. Let the religious people on the thread head up a massacre, as you said. It would simply prove the point.
I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to depart on the attitude you seem to be taking with all Muslims. You seem to forget that what we see is the result of radical Islamics (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran....all are run by hard line radical Islamic governments). These no more characterize all of Islam than the Jerry Farwells of the world represent Christianity. Just like any other religion, it has it's nuts. Unfortunately, just like Christianity, it's the loudest nuts that get all of the attention. However, it is inherently flawed to assume that all followers of that general religion are characterized by the nuts. I'd argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general, but I'd probably be massacred by the religious people on the thread.
[/QUOTE]
I should clarify that the attitude I’ve taken here is the same attitude I’ve taken with every other organized religious sect.
In this case, my frustration has turned to utter disgust because, while you’re absolutely correct that the loudest nuts get all the attention, it’s when those nuts constantly ‘hijack’ a religion – as we’ve been told is happening by more than a few NON-muslims – that I’d think the quiet ones ought to speak up. If they don’t, then they leave us to form our own conclusions.
My conclusion is this – when anyone demands the death or torture of someone else in the name of their god, and those of the same belief don’t stand up and demand calm and logic just as loudly, then the entire ‘faith’ looses what little credibility I’d given it in the first place. AND when everyone has to tip-toe around, watch their words and forever kowtow for fear of reprisals (the article I posted quotes an official as saying, ‘respect for islam runs deep in Britain’ as if to soften the blow of his disagreement with islam’s punishments) it comes off as subservient and fearful. Two reactions not unrelated to religion in general.
And I WILL argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general. Let the religious people on the thread head up a massacre, as you said. It would simply prove the point.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Magical,
I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to depart on the attitude you seem to be taking with all Muslims. You seem to forget that what we see is the result of radical Islamics (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran....all are run by hard line radical Islamic governments). These no more characterize all of Islam than the Jerry Farwells of the world represent Christianity. Just like any other religion, it has it's nuts. Unfortunately, just like Christianity, it's the loudest nuts that get all of the attention. However, it is inherently flawed to assume that all followers of that general religion are characterized by the nuts. I'd argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general, but I'd probably be massacred by the religious people on the thread.
[/QUOTE]
I should clarify that the attitude I’ve taken here is the same attitude I’ve taken with every other organized religious sect.
In this case, my frustration has turned to utter disgust because, while you’re absolutely correct that the loudest nuts get all the attention, it’s when those nuts constantly ‘hijack’ a religion – as we’ve been told is happening by more than a few NON-muslims – that I’d think the quiet ones ought to speak up. If they don’t, then they leave us to form our own conclusions.
My conclusion is this – when anyone demands the death or torture of someone else in the name of their god, and those of the same belief don’t stand up and demand calm and logic just as loudly, then the entire ‘faith’ looses what little credibility I’d given it in the first place. AND when everyone has to tip-toe around, watch their words and forever kowtow for fear of reprisals (the article I posted quotes an official as saying, ‘respect for islam runs deep in Britain’ as if to soften the blow of his disagreement with islam’s punishments) it comes off as subservient and fearful. Two reactions not unrelated to religion in general.
And I WILL argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general. Let the religious people on the thread head up a massacre, as you said. It would simply prove the point.
[/QUOTE]
I'm so glad that you made this clarification. I thought you were far too intelligent to fall into the "All Muslims are terrorists" line of thought.
And I fully agree with you that this is a danger of religion. It is also a danger of nationalism, and of anything at all that has anything to do with being a "unifying factor" in society. It can easily be hijacked and turn from pride into what one is into something that is VERY ugly.
I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to depart on the attitude you seem to be taking with all Muslims. You seem to forget that what we see is the result of radical Islamics (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran....all are run by hard line radical Islamic governments). These no more characterize all of Islam than the Jerry Farwells of the world represent Christianity. Just like any other religion, it has it's nuts. Unfortunately, just like Christianity, it's the loudest nuts that get all of the attention. However, it is inherently flawed to assume that all followers of that general religion are characterized by the nuts. I'd argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general, but I'd probably be massacred by the religious people on the thread.
[/QUOTE]
I should clarify that the attitude I’ve taken here is the same attitude I’ve taken with every other organized religious sect.
In this case, my frustration has turned to utter disgust because, while you’re absolutely correct that the loudest nuts get all the attention, it’s when those nuts constantly ‘hijack’ a religion – as we’ve been told is happening by more than a few NON-muslims – that I’d think the quiet ones ought to speak up. If they don’t, then they leave us to form our own conclusions.
My conclusion is this – when anyone demands the death or torture of someone else in the name of their god, and those of the same belief don’t stand up and demand calm and logic just as loudly, then the entire ‘faith’ looses what little credibility I’d given it in the first place. AND when everyone has to tip-toe around, watch their words and forever kowtow for fear of reprisals (the article I posted quotes an official as saying, ‘respect for islam runs deep in Britain’ as if to soften the blow of his disagreement with islam’s punishments) it comes off as subservient and fearful. Two reactions not unrelated to religion in general.
And I WILL argue that all of this is just a danger with religion in general. Let the religious people on the thread head up a massacre, as you said. It would simply prove the point.
[/QUOTE]
I'm so glad that you made this clarification. I thought you were far too intelligent to fall into the "All Muslims are terrorists" line of thought.
And I fully agree with you that this is a danger of religion. It is also a danger of nationalism, and of anything at all that has anything to do with being a "unifying factor" in society. It can easily be hijacked and turn from pride into what one is into something that is VERY ugly.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I hate to complain and I really don't have anything to complain about but I just want to make sure that you know Microwave, why I choose to stay home with my children when they are sick and that you are not paying for it when I do and you are also not paying for me having had a maternity leave. I earned it and I paid for it.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with you and that's not why I raised that point. The point is you chose to do that. Most men are still the majority bread winner and that's why Mom usually stays home, not Dad. Plus what good is Dad when you're sick? :) The reason, I believe, for the difference in income is merely that women stay home more often than men. I don't have a problem with that, but a lot of people do. Plus, women make more personal phone calls. Prove it? 1) Next time you're on the freeway, count how many women are on their cell phones compared to men. It's scary.
or 2) Who learned how to use ALL the features of their cell phone first?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ms. Rebel wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So if I'm against woman rights, abortion, gay marriage, sex before marriage, television then I'm simply "old fashioned"?
[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha. You are just kiding, right? I hope that you are.[/QUOTE]
Well, obviously the "woman's rights" I was. I simply understand why we still have issues today that make some women feel are discriminated for. I'm not saying I agree with them, I just understand why they are there.
But, for the record:
Abortion (not my first choice, but really none of my business!)
Gay marriage (against)
Sex before marriage (for)
test driving (for)
television (mostly against)
Women's rights I am against:
Right to drive
Right to bank
Right to tailgate sporting events
Right to cook red meat, all others OK
Right to tip
Right to order "take out"
or anything associated with Oprah, Rosie, Ellen or Walmart
I totally agree with you and that's not why I raised that point. The point is you chose to do that. Most men are still the majority bread winner and that's why Mom usually stays home, not Dad. Plus what good is Dad when you're sick? :) The reason, I believe, for the difference in income is merely that women stay home more often than men. I don't have a problem with that, but a lot of people do. Plus, women make more personal phone calls. Prove it? 1) Next time you're on the freeway, count how many women are on their cell phones compared to men. It's scary.
or 2) Who learned how to use ALL the features of their cell phone first?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ms. Rebel wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So if I'm against woman rights, abortion, gay marriage, sex before marriage, television then I'm simply "old fashioned"?
[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha. You are just kiding, right? I hope that you are.[/QUOTE]
Well, obviously the "woman's rights" I was. I simply understand why we still have issues today that make some women feel are discriminated for. I'm not saying I agree with them, I just understand why they are there.
But, for the record:
Abortion (not my first choice, but really none of my business!)
Gay marriage (against)
Sex before marriage (for)
test driving (for)
television (mostly against)
Women's rights I am against:
Right to drive
Right to bank
Right to tailgate sporting events
Right to cook red meat, all others OK
Right to tip
Right to order "take out"
or anything associated with Oprah, Rosie, Ellen or Walmart
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Well, obviously the "woman's rights" I was. I simply understand why we still have issues today that make some women feel are discriminated for. I'm not saying I agree with them, I just understand why they are there.
But, for the record:
Abortion (not my first choice, but really none of my business!)
Gay marriage (against)
Sex before marriage (for)
test driving (for)
television (mostly against)
Women's rights I am against:
Right to drive
Right to bank
Right to tailgate sporting events
Right to cook red meat, all others OK
Right to tip
Right to order "take out"
or anything associated with Oprah, Rosie, Ellen or Walmart
[/QUOTE]
HOLY FUCK!
You are crazy.......hahahahahaha!!!! I'm so not in mood to argue now, besides you know how to make me laugh :)
Well, obviously the "woman's rights" I was. I simply understand why we still have issues today that make some women feel are discriminated for. I'm not saying I agree with them, I just understand why they are there.
But, for the record:
Abortion (not my first choice, but really none of my business!)
Gay marriage (against)
Sex before marriage (for)
test driving (for)
television (mostly against)
Women's rights I am against:
Right to drive
Right to bank
Right to tailgate sporting events
Right to cook red meat, all others OK
Right to tip
Right to order "take out"
or anything associated with Oprah, Rosie, Ellen or Walmart
[/QUOTE]
HOLY FUCK!
You are crazy.......hahahahahaha!!!! I'm so not in mood to argue now, besides you know how to make me laugh :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Women's rights I am against:
Right to drive
Right to bank
Right to tailgate sporting events
Right to cook red meat, all others OK
Right to tip
Right to order "take out"
or anything associated with Oprah, Rosie, Ellen or Walmart[/QUOTE]
Misogynist, are we?
But again, you didn't say "right to vote", although I'm not ruling out the possibility that it was an oversight on your part.
Right to drive
Right to bank
Right to tailgate sporting events
Right to cook red meat, all others OK
Right to tip
Right to order "take out"
or anything associated with Oprah, Rosie, Ellen or Walmart[/QUOTE]
Misogynist, are we?
But again, you didn't say "right to vote", although I'm not ruling out the possibility that it was an oversight on your part.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I hate to complain and I really don't have anything to complain about but I just want to make sure that you know Microwave, why I choose to stay home with my children when they are sick and that you are not paying for it when I do and you are also not paying for me having had a maternity leave. I earned it and I paid for it.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with you and that's not why I raised that point. The point is you chose to do that. Most men are still the majority bread winner and that's why Mom usually stays home, not Dad. Plus what good is Dad when you're sick? :) The reason, I believe, for the difference in income is merely that women stay home more often than men. I don't have a problem with that, but a lot of people do. Plus, women make more personal phone calls. Prove it? 1) Next time you're on the freeway, count how many women are on their cell phones compared to men. It's scary.
or 2) Who learned how to use ALL the features of their cell phone first?
[/QUOTE]
I haven't counted men vs. women on cell phones but I notice nothing that makes me feel like women are on them more than men or vice versa. To #2, my husband has learned all the features of his Samsung PPC 6700 phone/palm thingy/emailer, etc. and his video Ipod. I on the other hand, learned the features of the dishwasher, washer, and dryer first.
I have a very basic cell phone and all I care to know that it does is call in and call out. I also text some of my friends.
I'm boring.
I totally agree with you and that's not why I raised that point. The point is you chose to do that. Most men are still the majority bread winner and that's why Mom usually stays home, not Dad. Plus what good is Dad when you're sick? :) The reason, I believe, for the difference in income is merely that women stay home more often than men. I don't have a problem with that, but a lot of people do. Plus, women make more personal phone calls. Prove it? 1) Next time you're on the freeway, count how many women are on their cell phones compared to men. It's scary.
or 2) Who learned how to use ALL the features of their cell phone first?
[/QUOTE]
I haven't counted men vs. women on cell phones but I notice nothing that makes me feel like women are on them more than men or vice versa. To #2, my husband has learned all the features of his Samsung PPC 6700 phone/palm thingy/emailer, etc. and his video Ipod. I on the other hand, learned the features of the dishwasher, washer, and dryer first.
I have a very basic cell phone and all I care to know that it does is call in and call out. I also text some of my friends.
I'm boring.
Hey, you forgot to mention that you're against women's right to be lesbians.
...unless both of them are hot.
...unless both of them are hot.