https://twitter.com/TheJordanRachel/status/1450167589737435139?s=20
Democrats are “funny”
Democrats are “funny”
I wonder which husband's sperm was used? Or was it neither?
Anyways, this kids won't be picked on at all. Two dads, no mom, at least one dad is a far-left socialist nutcase.
How long until the son is wearing makeup and dresses and the girl is wearing only boy clothes? I'd bet all my future life earnings its less than a year. Then they'll say, "the kids chose their own clothes and as such they choose their gender at less than 1 year old. Heroes!"
CrispyChicken wrote:
Does the birthing person also get maternity leave, or was she/he just a gestation vessel?
The value of work and "public service" have been so diminished.
When I was born over a half-century ago, my dad stopped by the hospital on his lunch break to check on mom and me and then right back to work. Dad had bills to pay with family (not taxpayer) money and a job to be done for his employer. I'll admit that when my children were personally born by my wife, I did take time off from work using vacation time to stay at my wife's side during the birthing process, but once all was stable I was back to work. Having children was our decision, not my employer's decision, so there was no reason for my employer to pay for or otherwise accommodate what went on in my personal life. And that's the way I believe things should be.
[img]
https://i.imgur.com/n8eJxYf.gif[/img]
Every other developed country owes its freedom to the U.S. Again, freeloaders not hard at work.
this is it wrote:
CrispyChicken wrote:
Does the birthing person also get maternity leave, or was she/he just a gestation vessel?
The value of work and "public service" have been so diminished.
When I was born over a half-century ago, my dad stopped by the hospital on his lunch break to check on mom and me and then right back to work. Dad had bills to pay with family (not taxpayer) money and a job to be done for his employer. I'll admit that when my children were personally born by my wife, I did take time off from work using vacation time to stay at my wife's side during the birthing process, but once all was stable I was back to work. Having children was our decision, not my employer's decision, so there was no reason for my employer to pay for or otherwise accommodate what went on in my personal life. And that's the way I believe things should be.
[img]
https://i.imgur.com/n8eJxYf.gif[/img]
Your welcome.
formerRTOCguy wrote:
CrispyChicken wrote:
Does the birthing person also get maternity leave, or was she/he just a gestation vessel?
The value of work and "public service" have been so diminished.
When I was born over a half-century ago, my dad stopped by the hospital on his lunch break to check on mom and me and then right back to work. Dad had bills to pay with family (not taxpayer) money
Oh did he built his own private roads, his own private schools. His own private hospital?
You use taxpayer services all the time, knucklehead. You’d think an old guy would know that
A road is a public work, a child is a private work. Learn the difference.
the giver wrote:
CrispyChicken wrote:
Does the birthing person also get maternity leave, or was she/he just a gestation vessel?
The value of work and "public service" have been so diminished.
When I was born over a half-century ago, my dad stopped by the hospital on his lunch break to check on mom and me and then right back to work. Dad had bills to pay with family (not taxpayer) money and a job to be done for his employer. I'll admit that when my children were personally born by my wife, I did take time off from work using vacation time to stay at my wife's side during the birthing process, but once all was stable I was back to work. Having children was our decision, not my employer's decision, so there was no reason for my employer to pay for or otherwise accommodate what went on in my personal life. And that's the way I believe things should be.
Some people aren't as bereft of spine as you and your pops.
At least I have the spine to register. You should likely post under the handle "the taker".
CrispyChicken wrote:
Loving your children is great, but I don't need to love or support your children or anybody else's children, or pay you to do so. If you can't afford them, don't have them. But I wouldn't expect the Democrat village of idiots to understand such a basic concept.
It's quite apparent that you barely know the names of your own children, having been mostly absent at work since birth. Shockingly, not everyone agrees that this is the best way to raise a child.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
I wonder which husband's sperm was used
That’s an odd thing to be thinking about.
Harambe wrote:
CrispyChicken wrote:
Loving your children is great, but I don't need to love or support your children or anybody else's children, or pay you to do so. If you can't afford them, don't have them. But I wouldn't expect the Democrat village of idiots to understand such a basic concept.
It's quite apparent that you barely know the names of your own children, having been mostly absent at work since birth. Shockingly, not everyone agrees that this is the best way to raise a child.
Would you be saying this to a mother of 4 children working 3 jobs to ensure that her kids are able to eat?
Pete being back at work would have no effect on the crisis.
The government doesn't run the government, the bureaucrats do. Even if the bureaucrats stay out of the way, Pete is not going to solve the labor issues involved here.
This is not like FDR and Harry Hopkins. The government doesn't respond. Heck, Trump couldn't even get the FBI to vet his own candidates in 18 months (although he probably annoyed them).
danube steak wrote:
Harambe wrote:
It's quite apparent that you barely know the names of your own children, having been mostly absent at work since birth. Shockingly, not everyone agrees that this is the best way to raise a child.
Would you be saying this to a mother of 4 children working 3 jobs to ensure that her kids are able to eat?
The point is Crispy thinks 'it's the way it should be'. No mother of 4 wants to work three jobs.
Why would we pay a handful of individuals in high positions large amounts of money only to have them out of work whenever they want kids. I like child leave for the general population but it should not be a thing for high paying jobs
Pete's Wagon wrote:
The pics are great of him holding the baby but the guy needs to get back to work pronto. No one even knew he was on paternity leave and he began it back in August. Why did he not select a replacement?
I'm going to suprise people here by saying I totally agree and support the decision made by Pete. In fact, I think we should put the entire Biden administration on paid leave and we'd really see the country take a big step forward. I sure wouldn't notice if they all went away for a while.
CrispyChicken wrote:
formerRTOCguy wrote:
Oh did he built his own private roads, his own private schools. His own private hospital?
You use taxpayer services all the time, knucklehead. You’d think an old guy would know that
A road is a public work, a child is a private work. Learn the difference.
Deer Chicken –– Adopted children are unwanted by the birth parents. The parental rights of the birth parents are terminated by a court of law. The birth parents cannot undo an adoption. A court of law is a public work, not a private work. Learn what adoption is.
danube steak wrote:
Harambe wrote:
It's quite apparent that you barely know the names of your own children, having been mostly absent at work since birth. Shockingly, not everyone agrees that this is the best way to raise a child.
Would you be saying this to a mother of 4 children working 3 jobs to ensure that her kids are able to eat?
I doubt she would be sanctimoniously lecturing people for choosing to take paternity leave.
It's inhumane to deliberately bring a child into the World and raise it without a mother, a mother nurtures a child in a way that a father can't. If these two want some company around the house, get a cat or dog.
runnerboy70 wrote:
It's inhumane to deliberately bring a child into the World and raise it without a mother, a mother nurtures a child in a way that a father can't. If these two want some company around the house, get a cat or dog.
Idiot. The parents threw the babies out with the trash. They were UNWANTED by the mother. How would YOU go about FORCING a mother who does not want a child (like the Texas forced birth law) to raise that child? And who pays for the forced raising, the mother of the father who fled the scene?
danube steak wrote:
Harambe wrote:
It's quite apparent that you barely know the names of your own children, having been mostly absent at work since birth. Shockingly, not everyone agrees that this is the best way to raise a child.
Would you be saying this to a mother of 4 children working 3 jobs to ensure that her kids are able to eat?
Those people don't exist. A single mother of 4 would be foolish to disqualify herself from generous welfare benefits by working 1 let alone 3 jobs.
