So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[Fading Fast]

Somebody must have lost all those single shoes you see in ditches by the side of the road. The circumstances are not for us to know.

As far as the kids thing goes, the only class of people in the world more self-righteous than the ones who'll tell you why they chose not to have kids are the ones who'll tell you why they did.

I have noticed the single-shoe-in-the-ditch phenomenon and have no answers for how that happens. In my life, it would be hard to lose one shoe. I'm thinking those one-shoe-in-the-ditch lives are more exciting ones than mine.

As to kids, I chose not to have any, but only see that as a personal choice, not a moral statement. It wasn't right for me, but it is not a comment at all on whether or not it is right or moral for the next person.

 

[LizzieMaine]

View attachment 65055

"G'wan, geddada heah! We sent youse people a check las' week!"

 

[sheeplady]

If you're rich a famous you can buy them relatively quickly from third world countries & you're offered a wide range of colors & sizes which make wonderful accessories to your designer clothes when being snapped by an organized paparazzi photo shoot.

This always puzzled me- I know money talk's but those agencies must not do anything to check on the celeb. I had a colleague who started an international adoption at age 39. The age limit for most adoption agencies apparently is age 45. After all the hoops (home visits, character visits, etc.) were done, they started the actual process. Cue Russia not allowing US to adopt anymore, and basically all agencies had a slow down and panic. Cue some sort of investigation into all adoption agencies from country of origin. She slid into home plate with the kid fully adopted at age 44.

And adoption from the US foster system is no picnic- the woman I know who did that fostered two kids. One day, her husband ups and hits her. She divorces him. Foster system takes the kids away, as a foster parent going through a divorce is considered "too traumatic." Meanwhile, this is the only mother they know, but they are placed back in the hands of the temporary foster parent who had them before (the eldest vaguely remembered her).

Biological mother (with boyfriend who sexually abused the kids)makes a bid for the kids, which apparently was allowed because they'd been switched homes; this obviously doesn't float. Meanwhile foster mother (again, only mother they know) can't see them. Foster mother gets a quick divorce, is ruled fit immediately upon providing the papers. She is given a really good visitation schedule in her favor with the kids. Biological parents have one set month twice a year in which they can schedule one visit, but they can't be in jail and they have to intiate the appointment. Biological parents never saw the kids again.

It turned out well for the kids (well, except for the fact their biological parents were abusive) and the mother... but you cannot imagine the stress that family went through.

But yeah, you can always adopt! It''s easy! (Sarcasm)

 

[sheeplady]

I have noticed the single-shoe-in-the-ditch phenomenon and have no answers for how that happens. In my life, it would be hard to lose one shoe. I'm thinking those one-shoe-in-the-ditch lives are more exciting ones than mine.

As to kids, I chose not to have any, but only see that as a personal choice, not a moral statement. It wasn't right for me, but it is not a comment at all on whether or not it is right or moral for the next person.

I saw a flipflop in a snowbank of a major highway this winter. I'm pretty sure that person's life is more terrifying than mine- to lose a single flip flop on an interstate in a 5 foot snow bank...

 

[HudsonHawk]

Well I hope all you fancy schmancy folks who've never lost a shoe will keep associating with the rest of us.

As for being asked why you don't have kids, my wife says "I'm not allowed to, it's part of my plea bargain deal. Now, you wanna put a leash on yours?" Rarely does the inquisition go further.

 

[Fading Fast]

Well I hope all you fancy schmancy folks who've never lost a shoe will keep associating with the rest of us.....

Hmm, there is a way to block individuals on FL on think - now, where is that feature.

 

[ChiTownScion]

This always puzzled me- I know money talk's but those agencies must not do anything to check on the celeb. I had a colleague who started an international adoption at age 39. The age limit for most adoption agencies apparently is age 45. After all the hoops (home visits, character visits, etc.) were done, they started the actual process. Cue Russia not allowing US to adopt anymore, and basically all agencies had a slow down and panic. Cue some sort of investigation into all adoption agencies from country of origin. She slid into home plate with the kid fully adopted at age 44.

And adoption from the US foster system is no picnic- the woman I know who did that fostered two kids. One day, her husband ups and hits her. She divorces him. Foster system takes the kids away, as a foster parent going through a divorce is considered "too traumatic." Meanwhile, this is the only mother they know, but they are placed back in the hands of the temporary foster parent who had them before (the eldest vaguely remembered her).

Biological mother (with boyfriend who sexually abused the kids)makes a bid for the kids, which apparently was allowed because they'd been switched homes; this obviously doesn't float. Meanwhile foster mother (again, only mother they know) can't see them. Foster mother gets a quick divorce, is ruled fit immediately upon providing the papers. She is given a really good visitation schedule in her favor with the kids. Biological parents have one set month twice a year in which they can schedule one visit, but they can't be in jail and they have to intiate the appointment. Biological parents never saw the kids again.

It turned out well for the kids (well, except for the fact their biological parents were abusive) and the mother... but you cannot imagine the stress that family went through.

But yeah, you can always adopt! It''s easy! (Sarcasm)

Adopted three: one domestic adoption when he was an infant, and two older brothers from Russia. I could write a book.... or keep an expensive therapist employed for at least a decade.

 

[2jakes]

I was adopted by this cat.

He found me wandering by the tennis courts & gave me a home.

 

[GHT]

Now losing one sock is an entirely differently thing.

How do you lose one sock? Socks are placed into the laundry bag, zipped close and put into the washing machine. That's it.


Funniest thing, I too have been adopted by a cat, Had this ball of fluff announce that she would give me permission to let her live at my place. I had to feed her, keep her litter box clean and pay the vet's fees, other than that, no further hoops.


On the kids/no kids subject, my sister, who has no children once told a very nosey and rude female colleague, in answer to why she was childless. "Why should the why's and wherefore's of my uterus be the topic of conversation?

 

[HudsonHawk]

Hmm, there is a way to block individuals on FL on think - now, where is that feature.

I save that feature for those who put beans in their chili. That's just over the line.

 

[Harp]

On the kids/no kids subject, my sister, who has no children once told a very nosey and rude female colleague, in answer to why she was childless....

I've been asked by seemingly incredulous gals why I never married- endlessly.
And I have been tempted to use James Bond's line "I prefer a bachelor's freedom," but I am not that brave...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I firmly believe that some people should not be allowed to have kids. And I put myself at the top of that list.

 

[2jakes]

I firmly believe that some people should not be allowed to have kids. And I put myself at the top of that list.

This planet would've been much simpler if Adam had put himself on that list .....

 

[Trenchfriend]

If you got Asperger, would you conceive a child, with the risk of 50 to 75% for having Asperger itself?

 

[2jakes]

If you got Asperger, would you conceive a child, with the risk of 50 to 75% for having Asperger itself?

Don't know about autism, but people who are alcoholic, their children have a 50%
propensity to become alcoholics.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Don't know about autism, but people who are alcoholic, their children have a 50%
propensity to become alcoholics.

That's why I haven't even tried booze. And I would really like to taste some of the more artisan alxohols. I don't even want to risk it.

 

[Edward]

The UK has what is known as a constitutional monarchy. The Queen, although head of state, has no real political power nor a say in government decisions.

That's the common belief. In practice, many of the old crown powers are exercised by the Prime Minister of the day, who is an elected mp and leader of the largest party in Parliament, though not directly elected to the role. Where a crown power is invoked under the Crown Prerogative, the PM neither has to consult Parliament to act, nor are they accountable to Parliament on that regard. Declarations of war and peace come under this, for example (though in recent decades the convention of a show debate on war has been established).

The monarch does retsin an ultimate right of veto over any uk legislation; no law passed by Parliament is valid until signed by the monarch. In practice this is not exercised for obvious reasons, but there is nothing in place to prevent a monarch censoring a new law. What is less known is that the sitting monarch and the heir apparent hold a right of veto over Parliament even discussing the possibility of legislation which could impact on their personal interests; any such bill must be presented to them in private before it reaches the legislature.

The current pm is required always to meet weekly with the monarch while Parliament is in session. The influence a sitting monarch might have here nowadays we cannot assess, as the royals are wholly exempted from freedom of information legislation. As the ongoing controversy over the current heir to the throne's political interventions indicates, however, the monarchy clearly both enjoys and expects a level of influence which is not quite in line with the popular notion that it is a powerless decoration.

⇧ My vague memory of the history is that they were all marrying into each other's families for both political reason - to secure a peace, advance a treaty, etc., - and royalty likes marrying royalty, so looking at other countries' royal offspring increases your pool of candidates.

Hence, English, German and Russian royalty had a lot of overlap. The last Czar's wife - Alexandra - was the granddaughter of the Queen Victoria. Clearly, she'd have been better off not marrying into the Russian Royal family.

Much was made, positive and negative, of Ctherine Middleton's "commoner" (i.e. not from titled aristocracy) background when she married the second in line to the throne, as this was a first for the English royals. Certainly, European royalty for centuries married among itself. Prince Phillip, of the no longer existing Greek royalty, is himself, if memory serves, really Danish in origin. Victoria was 3/4 German; she died holding the hand of her favourite grandchild, Kaiser Wilheim II. But for primogeniture acting against his mother, Wilhelm would have been King in England. The family's Germanness was rebranded at the outbreak of WW1, and thus the invention of the house of "Windsor". Some critics still question their nationality, though the reality is that the aristocracy across Europe in general have far more in common with each other than it being about nationality. Class structure is still hugely significant in Britain in the fabric of daily life (right down to even things like the make up of our obscenity laws).

If the British Public wanted to, could it vote to eliminate the monarchy? The reason I ask is it voted to leave the EU, so where does the public's power to call the shots stop regarding our very recent discussion on the monarchy?

In theory, with the Treason Act still in force, it is a criminal offence to even discuss the idea in a public forum. It is expressly forbidden in the oath of allegiance to serve the crown that all mps must take before they are allowed to sit in Parliament. (Several mps from one political part who refuse to take this oath have never been permitted access to the chamber - or, for many years, even offices and other Westminster facilities - despite bring elected many times by the local electorate. Others take the oath with crossed fingers, and it's largely a nod and a wink they mean not a word of it.) In practice, of course, if all of Parliament decided to amend the system, it would still need Crown ascent to do it by legislation, which would provide an interesting situation. I suspect when that day comes, though, they'll quietly retire without fuss. Much of the rules designed to prevent support and promotion of such change wouldn't stand up to Article 10 analysis, and so I doubt they'd push that too hard.

The bit about her "childless state" is even more obnoxious than the shoe thing. What the hell business is that of anyone but her?

It was brought into the post-Cameron leadership chalkenge by her rival, Andrea Leadsome. Ultimately it worked in May's favour as the public reaction prompted Leadsome to pull out of the race, leaving May unopposed in the final stage. It should, of course, never have been an issue. I think it still would have been for a man, if not to the same extent.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

This planet would've been much simpler if Adam had put himself on that list .....

Lists didn't exist back then, neither did condoms & apparantly Eve was a dead ringer for a 35 year old Raquel Welch.... so who amoung us could resist.

Adam did ask God though, " If women were so great, how come he didn't have one."

 

[GHT]

I've been asked by seemingly incredulous gals why I never married- endlessly.
And I have been tempted to use James Bond's line "I prefer a bachelor's freedom," but I am not that brave...

Didn't you know? Single men look like a movie star, party like a rock star and **** like a porn star!

 

[2jakes]

Adam did ask God though, " If women were so great, how come he didn't have one."

God figured that Adam couldn't withstand loosing another rib!