deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)

Chris wrote:
If he can
find some way to share the costs of raising her without sending me
money, I'm all for it.

No you're not.

well, please, Chris, enlighten me as to how he can contribute anm equal
share towards supporting her without sending me money.

--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
t...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Married parents have the exact same rights.

I agree. But it is ridiculous for Chris to say that
married
men
have
only privileges regarding their children, and only the
mothers
have
rights. That is simply not true.

With the domestic violance laws, men have no rights in their
own
home!
Just recently, a guy calls 911 because his wife is out of
control,
they
arrested him!

There is no law anywhere that says that men have fewer rights
with
their
children than women in an intact home. That is simply not
true.

Uhuh, and the sun doesn't rise in the east either. You are dead
WRONG!
Of
course, let's pay no attention to case law........

My
nephew's wife was arrested for throwing an empty soda can at
him
to
keep
him
from hitting her again. The system is bad enough--exaggerating
by
saying
things like "men have no rights to their own children, even in
an
intact
home" is not helping matters.

Perhaps you should take that up with the "family" court people
and
their
crony enforcement agents because they are the ones that are
making
sure
that
men do not have such rights. Call it an exaggeration, but it is
STILL
the
truth.

Do you even bother to read?

I sure do! How about YOU?

In an INTACT MARRIAGE fathers and mothers have
the same rights.

No they don't.

Prove it!

Hard for me to prove that the sun rises in the east, but a simple
opening
of
one's eyes will reveal such fact. It might help you to go into ANY
"family"
court, and there you will have ALL the proof you need.

Intact families aren't in family court, Chris.

Intact grenades are not shred into tiny pieces either; so I guess they
lack
the ability to explode.

Hmmmm...you have the ability to murder someone, so I guess you should be
in
prison.

Non sequitur and faulty analogy. Having the ability to commit crime is not
reason for incarceration. Likewise, NOT being in "family" court has no
bearing on the existence of rights. Such court is merely a formal setting
designed to remind (inform?) the father of his lack of rights and the
consequences should he attempt to take such rights. Pretty obvious. Why this
truth escapes you is beyond me.




Prove that fathers and mother
in intact relationships have different rights in regards to the
children.

Prove that intact grenades have the ability to explode.

Poor wittle Cwissy.

[By the way, I already had this response ready as I anticipated your
above
statement. So predictable.]

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
et...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

Why let some judge limit your time with your children? I
have
long
been
an advocate for fathers to ignore all the custody and
visitation
limitations placed on them by the courts. If you were a
good
dad
before
the breakup, you should continue to be the same good dad
after
the
breakup.

Sounds a lot like Ron Paul:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...90700child.htm

Not to me. It sounds like an industrial psychologist I know.
He
is
always
pointing out people have mental tapes they continually run
over
and
over
in
their heads. When a person gets stuck in a certain thought
pattern
he
says
to "rewrite your tapes." IOW - Change the way you look at
situations
to
a
more healthy thought pattern that doesn't give you so much
grief
when
you
play it over and over in your head.

In this example, many fathers play a tape over and over in
their
head
that
they are at the mercy of the courts for visitation and a sole
custody
decision has taken away their rights. By rewriting your tapes
you
can
flip
that mentally to run a different message. In my case the new
tape
is
"I
can
be a good father and there are no limitations on what I can do
to
be
a
good
parent."

Looks like you are on the brink of figuring it out. Something
very
few
indeed will accomplish.

Ah--so this is what you do in your child's life, right, Chris?

Non sequitur.

Non answer chuckle

That's correct. I don't answer non sequitur, also known as
irrelevant,
questions.

chuckle Anything you can't answer is a non sequitur, Chris. giggle

Correction: Anything that is a non sequitur I WON'T answer.
[I notice that you've been laughing at your ridiculous claims. I find
them
kinda humorous too.]

And I find your insistence that men should be able to have sex that leads
to
a child with absolutely NO responsibility other than what they choose to
assume for only the length of time they choose to assume it to be
repugnant
and immoral.

Not my claim. It is the way the government people have set it up. So if
anyone is repugnant and immoral, that'd be them!
(By the way, a man having sex leads to a child no more so than me handing
you a gun leads to a crime.)


The child support system is an umbalanced, innefective, unfair
system--but it is far, far better than your ideas will ever be.

In YOUR opinion. But in MY opinion; not even CLOSE! More along the lines of
(as you say) repugnant and immoral. If you support ANY facet of their wicked
system, then you might as well support ALL of it; because in essence, that's
what you are doing. The only way to cure the disease known as "child
support" is to ELIMINATE it, not restructure it.

In article , Chris says...




(By the way, a man having sex leads to a child no more so than me handing
you a gun leads to a crime.)


Right - it does depend on whether or not you ahem shoot the gun.

Banty

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
Chris wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
Sarah Gray wrote:
Chris wrote:
Sarah Gray wrote:
Chris wrote:
Children are raised all the time without so much as
a single
dime
being
spent.

How are they raised without someone paying for
shelter, food,
clothing,
and childcare expenses?

The above question suggests that money existed before
PEOPLE
did.

what?
Well, if it takes money to care for a child, the first
persons in
existence
most certainly had to have money; otherwise, the human race
could not
have
survived.

Are you suggesting I become a hunter-gatherer?

I am suggesting that money is NOT a prerequisite to caring for
children.


He has a responsibility to help support his daughter.
Free money paid to you is NOT the same as supporting any
child.

Well how would you suggest that he support her, as he lives
two states
away?

I don't suggest that he do anything. Should he choose to
"support" her,
how
he does so is HIS business.

chuckle I told you so, Sarah.
I'm not Sarah.

She wasn't talking to you

She responded to me (my post).


--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
news
Chris wrote:
He is entitled to move ANYWHERE he wants. The reason why he is not
allowed
to raise your child is because YOU won't allow it. Am I wrong?

What do you mean "not allowed"? He *was* raising her, and then decided
to leave the state.

Your sneaky ways of attempting to reword what I say is getting old. I NEVER
claimed "not allowed" (past tense). I said "won't allow it" (PRESENT tense)!


--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in
message ...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
teachrmama wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
teachrmama wrote:
"DB" wrote in message
...
"teachrmama" wrote in

OK, so he buys her clothes in the spring, then gives
her $25 plus
clothes, and that covers it?
You missed the $200 per month that he agreed was a
reasonable
amount!
Oh--ok--I thought you were going just for the clothes.
That sounds
far
more reasonable. Although that does barely cover the cost
of
latchkey.
Still, if it is building relationship at the same time, it
could be
better than arguing.
I broke down the reality of the expenses and he told me that
he knew I
was "cheap", and that I should learn how to budget better...
At the
same
time, he tells me I should not buy her "no brand" and used
things...

He's in for a rude awakening in court. Have you asked him for a
breakdown of his budget?

I have asked, but he's not giving me any information other than
he's
playing his folks $100 a week in rent.

Well, if he insists on doing the court thing, they will probably be
a bit
more insistant on hearing about his finances. Let's just hope he
doesn't
try saying that your daughter would be better off with him because
his
parents could provide around-the-clock care, and she would never
have to
go
to child care.

That's right. FAR better that a child gets raised by some paid
childcare
provider than their own grandparents AND be with the father! Wait a
minute.
Just hit me like a ton of bricks. It's not that she would be with her
grandparents that's the problem; rather it's because she would be with
her
father.

Well, her grandparents would not be watching her; they both work, too. I
have no problem with her being with her father;

Yes you do because that is why she is not with him.

perhaps if he did not
live a day's drive away he'd be able to see her.

--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in

to the court, than have the child support formula computed. If he
chooses
to forgoe the reasonable amount, in favor of the higher amount that they
are likely to award, why is it my fault he can't do simple math?

OK one more time, this is not about the math, it's about betrayal in his
mind!

All the court orders in the world are not going to make any difference, he
will find all ways possible to avoid paying you anything.

Best bet, go for $200, that's a good starting point and let him buy the
extras on his own terms!

Hey it's your life and a free country,

..... except if you're a father.

what do I care!

good luck with that!

"teachrmama" wrote in

That because I cheated on my husband *years* before he filed for divorce,
he is no longer obligated to support his daughter?
I don't understand that reasoning.

No--if you were a man and had done the same thing, they would be telling
you to try to avoid court, to settle for the lesser amount if it will keep
hostilities to a minimum--the exact same advice they are giving you as a
woman.

Just like my Ex, doesn't want to listen to reason, act in the best interest
of the child, she's only focused on the money she thinks the court can get
her.

"Banty" wrote in

(By the way, a man having sex leads to a child no more so than me handing
you a gun leads to a crime.)


Right - it does depend on whether or not you ahem shoot the gun.

Then again, if you take the gun and place it in your mouth and tell me it's
OK to pull the trigger!