Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Apr 21st 2013 8:29PM "...If we ever break up, we have already discussed that I would keep the house."
Really? So what happens to all those mortage payments he made while you were together, he just loses all that? He walks away from that? You may think it doesn't bother him NOW, while you're still doing the horizontal mambo, but when the break up gets nasty and both of you are flinging names at each other, trust me, he will remember the money, and have a lawyer. Also, why would you want to get stuck with a house AFTER a breakup? Wouldn't you want to be free to relocate? Do you REALLY want to see him at the grocery store every day walking around with a prettier, younger, bustier version of Christine? LOL. The blind optimism of the young amazes me.
Apr 21st 2013 8:07PM Something else to consider, is the fact that if ONE party already owns a house or condo, and the other one moves in, the 2nd person is basically paying rent on something they may never own. In other words, let's say a man has a woman move in with him. It's in his interest to actually further the relationship to the point of cohabitation, because she's paying half his mortage for him! (Thanks girlfriend!). And since modern engagements can last forever, this is a great deal for him. If it doesn't work out, he's actually still gained something financial. If it DOES work out, the new wife is put in the shaky position of asking to put her name on the deed, or else make him sell it, move out, and buy a whole new place together. If this is a young couple we're talking about and neither own a home or condo, then they should just rent a place together and wait to buy until marriage. Keep it simple. But of course these days, couples want to FEEL married before they actually ARE married. They want babies and houses and SUV's and soccer games, and figure that will make the man stay at home and not roam, or the woman stay at home and bake cookies. Guess what, the divorce rate is still 50 percent so I guess that doesn't work, either. LOL.
Apr 9th 2013 7:41PM Why not just move them into the hundreds of thousands of vacant homes created by the banking and real estate thieves? We have empty homes, and people living under ground. Does that make sense?
I never, ever thought, living in America, that it would come to this. Families living under the earth. Constant war. Sports and entertainment stars living like kings. Teachers treated like garbage and paid with it. Unions dead. Contaminated food. Mega-box stores and Mega-box churches. A pope who quits because of corruption. Every politician bought and paid for. Neighbor against Neighbor.
We have made the nation the way it is. We could change every last problem. But if you talk to people, they'd rather have it the way it is, because of political reasons, or because they resent a different group, or because they're selfish and lazy.
May 26th 2012 11:54AM Not sure why the author proclaims that zero slaves built the pyramids. Seems like this is a bit of revisionist history, to go along with recent articles coming out of Egypt and published in the West, that claim a small cemetary of 600 workers are proof they are the true builders. Since it takes 30 years to build even 1 pyramid, and thousands of workers every year, most of which I imagine have to be rotated regularly, it seems a stretch to proclaim you've found all the builders. (And even those bodies indicate extreme fatigue to the bones, arthritis, and a shortened lifespan).
These theories are politically motivated. Egypt doesn't want their skills to go unhearalded, and certainly detest the legacy of slave labor. I shrug my shoulders, because even in US history, there are artisans, experts, scientists, craftsmen and so on, but it doesn't mean there wasn't also slave labor, near-slave labor, indentured servitude and sharecropping. Of course there was, and of course they all built America. It would be as if WE said, oh, the slaves really didn't do much, after all.
One of the researchers compared the pyramid-building to an old-fashioned Amish barn-raising. Happy and willing workers, all volunteers, proud to be Egyptian and contribute to their great society. "That was one heck of a barn", he said. Really? That's all I have to say...really?
Dec 18th 2011 11:28AM Kristen, if you're the poster that replied to me at #95, I'll use this to do so, since the website doesn't permit replies to replies.
If you're a vet then PLEASE help us. We are owners and parents, not nazis. I think the list of grievences are petty because to me, they do seem petty. As owners, we go through a lot. We have to watch our pets suffer with illness and look to the vet for help and empathy, not a bill in our face for 1,400, and to be told, well that's what it is, in cash, right now, no exceptions. So yes, I do have a problem with the money and don't know why there isn't a sliding scale. You own the Xray machine. You can charge whatever you want for each view. Instead of charging 250 or 300 for 2 views you can give me 5 views, or charge less. Or, you can offer to skip it and go right to the ultrasound, if you know you're going to need it ANYWAY. Help the owner. If you're a vet in a 24hr animal hospital, give the owner the option of stablizing the patient then transfer to a regular vet, to reduce costs. If you're a vet in a day animal hospital or office, work with the patient's budget to get the most bang for the buck.
I had to actually go online to talk to a internet vet who immediately warned of cancer when I told him the other vet mentioned there was "some fluid" on the Xray. He said that's a big sign. It seems to me that when cancer is so common with cats at 12 years and older, why not cut to the chase and get that scan to see all the organs. I would have been happy to pay $300 to find out what was going on. But this ala carte stuff, this piecemeal stuff, one thing after another....this is something most of us can't afford.
As far as the medication thing you talked about, it's hard. I had to use pill poppers to get my cat to take them, and then she eventually refused them. Show your owners exactly how to do it. Let the owner do it right in front of you on the table and if the owner's technique is wrong, show us what it is we're doing wrong! One of the vets told me that I could have omitted one particular pill because it is available in injection form. Too late, though.
My assumption was that vets get into this profession to help animals. Otherwise you'd be a General Practioner or P.A. or ARNP. I'm doubting that now, because I see more money than dedication. I saw 3 vets before my cat was put down after the aggressive cancer diagnosis. One was really nice, (although his tech was heartless). The other two threw bills at me and gave me few options. I was the one who thought of it myself, to ask if they had a sample for one of the meds (they did). I was the one who thought of alternative to pills, and to go right to the Ultrasound instead of additional Xrays. Unfortunately I didn't think to ask for pain meds, no one offered, and I needed them that night.
Thanks for listening.
Dec 17th 2011 8:01PM Here’s what I think of those 7 points:
1. Cell phones: I sympathize, but in the real world people have cell phones. Yes they are annoying, but it’s a little petty to bring up.
2. Kids: Small children cannot be left at home, and may also be concerned about their pet. Again, petty.
3/4. Dogs/Cats in Waiting room: While I agree that dogs should be controlled, saying you don’t blame them for attacking cats is a little heartless. But I digress, you’re a vet, so I’m not surprised.
5. Denial: Honestly, this sounds like you’re annoyed the owner has an opinion about their pet. How is this different than a mother at a pediatrician’s office?
6. Refusing to Pay: BULL. That’s all I have to say about that.
7. Don’t follow through: How about asking the owner if they are familiar with shoving a pill down their cat’s throat, and if they’re not skilled at it, provide liquid medicine or some other solution, like a shot that will last a week (I found out too late about that one).
So overall, it's one big, fat whine. That's my conclusion. Go into another profession if this is too tedious for you. Or better yet, be a pediatrician and see what they have to put up with. You'll be literally running back to the vet's office.
Dec 17th 2011 7:32PM You people have GOT to be kidding. Vets don't make money? Seriously? I paid $1,400 in cash to the vet at the after-hours animal hospital. That was only for labs and a 2 view Xray, and some antibiotics and another med. Then I saw a regular vet, and instead of ordering an ultrasound, which in the human world would be easily done by bringing the script to a hospital, I had to pay another doctor for another visit and another fecal, before I paid him $300.00 for the scan, which btw they never showed me, and was likely one of those portable little machines with the fuzzy graphic instead of a large negative. They also tried to convince me get Xrays done, even though they were already done at the 1st animal hospital.
So let's compare. A human doctor is on a salary working under an owner doctor and has to pay ridiculous malpractice premiums. He gets paid for an office visit and that's it, and usually gets a 30 dollar copay or something, having to bill the insurance company, or medicare, later. The insurance may not pay and there's often problems. A vet, meanwhile, gets paid SAME DAY, in CASH, and refuses to bill in installments. Unlike a county hospital, he/she can REFUSE CARE. Plus, there is less hassle, no insurance company to fight with. But wait, it doesn't end there. The vet gets paid for the drugs he dispenses, instead of the owner going to a pharmacy, and the vet gets paid for things like Ultrasounds, which many people doctors simply write a script for and send you elsewhere.
So please, no violins. I'm a pet owner, I see with my own eyes, and frankly it's a little shocking, in fact.
Dec 17th 2011 7:01PM I absolutely agree with many of your points. Also, your answer to the snotty remark about don't have pets if you can't afford them is spot on. We take in animals. What would they have us do, not take in a homeless cat or save a dog from death row? I have not spent a dime on my own teeth, which need work, or my bad shoulder, or even get new glasses. But I borrowed the money to get my pet every bit of diagnostic test the doctor wanted. How dare anyone try to shame us or chastise us. I have my own list for vets and their assistants, starting with the assistant who dragged my sick cat out of her carrier before getting euthanized, instead of letting me carefully take her out. It's her last moments of life for gods sake. A little dignity, empathy, and care would be nice.
Jun 2nd 2011 6:23PM You seem to have a problem with the fact that the women were adventurous and brave, and expanded the species. What does cooking have to do with it? lol. Actually this article makes a lot of sense, because a male is programmed to mate with anything. ANYTHING - females, males, sheep, horses, relatives, non-relatives, and sometimes even children. This leaves women to decided who to accept as a mate, in order to produce superior children. Early women would instinctively stay in a tribe if it was large enough to accomodate her choices and needs, and leave a tribe if it was too small and the choice of mate was not diverse enough.
Apr 27th 2011 6:13AM I have no idea why you're shoving Jesus into a conversation about salt and wine, but your quote is wrong anyway, it was about defiling words, it had nothing to do with sex. The point of his sermon was that it doesn't matter if you eat unclean foods, because all food is clean to God, it matters what comes out of your mouth, not into it.