CS and women's greed strikes again..

Don wrote:
If femroids can't or won't control their wombs, the Scott Peterson
approach is the way to go.

That's pretty sick man. You lose all credibility when you come out with
**** like that.

LOL. Not that long ago MEN took action to protect ourselves and our
families. Now there are far too many wusses.


btw - where did Kerry make that speech below? I want to see if I can find
the sound bite so I can pass it on.

DUH, the link is on the quote.


When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Don wrote:
If femroids can't or won't control their wombs, the Scott Peterson
approach is the way to go.

That's pretty sick man. You lose all credibility when you come out with
**** like that.

LOL. Not that long ago MEN took action to protect ourselves and our
families. Now there are far too many wusses.


btw - where did Kerry make that speech below? I want to see if I can find
the sound bite so I can pass it on.

DUH, the link is on the quote.


When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Don wrote:
If femroids can't or won't control their wombs, the Scott Peterson
approach is the way to go.

That's pretty sick man. You lose all credibility when you come out with
**** like that.

LOL. Not that long ago MEN took action to protect ourselves and our
families. Now there are far too many wusses.


btw - where did Kerry make that speech below? I want to see if I can find
the sound bite so I can pass it on.

DUH, the link is on the quote.


When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
I am as disgusted with the system as you are, Bob. I, however, do not
agree
with you that the solution to the problem is eliminating mothers from
their
children's lives just the way the system now eliminates fathers.

That red herring doesn't fly, toots.

Red herring?

"toots"?


Bob generally favors 2 parent homes and supports the child's right to
both parents. However, a growing pile of research tends to show that
the father is by far more important to the child's success in school,
relationships, crime avoidance, pregnancy avoidance, DV avoidance, jobs,
and every measurable way. Kids raised with father and mother or just
with father succeed. Kids raised with mother headed homes or even homes
with mother and her latest "husband" are less likely to succeed.

The problem is, Bob, that there has not been a period of thime where
father-headed single parent households have been the norm. If/when this
happens, there will be studies showing that other sociological problems have
developed because the mother half of the parenting has been missing. Right
now, the majority of father-headed households are that way because the
father fought for that right, so we would tend to see motivated fathers in
these households. (My brother is a single dad, and a very good one.) So
studies *would* tend to show father-headed households in a positive light.
If father-headed households became the default, we might see something
totally different.

Now, before you go off the deep end at me, I cannot imagine my life without
my father. I cannot imagine our girls growing up with their father only as
a visitor. I've been a teacher for a long time. I know how important BOTH
parents are to a child's well being. IF a divorce has to take place, I
think shared custody--true shared custody, legally enforced--is the only way
to go. Because children need both parents involved in their lives.


I think
Nature set things up so there are 2 parents for a reason. And changing
the
system from "fathers are just wallets with penises" to "mothers are
just
holes for babies to come out" is not a solution.

Mothers are also good at feeding babies, and nurturing kids through the
first years. Mothering is not as good at teaching children to survive
and prosper in the real world.

That's why they need both parents, Bob.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
I am as disgusted with the system as you are, Bob. I, however, do not
agree
with you that the solution to the problem is eliminating mothers from
their
children's lives just the way the system now eliminates fathers.

That red herring doesn't fly, toots.

Red herring?

"toots"?


Bob generally favors 2 parent homes and supports the child's right to
both parents. However, a growing pile of research tends to show that
the father is by far more important to the child's success in school,
relationships, crime avoidance, pregnancy avoidance, DV avoidance, jobs,
and every measurable way. Kids raised with father and mother or just
with father succeed. Kids raised with mother headed homes or even homes
with mother and her latest "husband" are less likely to succeed.

The problem is, Bob, that there has not been a period of thime where
father-headed single parent households have been the norm. If/when this
happens, there will be studies showing that other sociological problems have
developed because the mother half of the parenting has been missing. Right
now, the majority of father-headed households are that way because the
father fought for that right, so we would tend to see motivated fathers in
these households. (My brother is a single dad, and a very good one.) So
studies *would* tend to show father-headed households in a positive light.
If father-headed households became the default, we might see something
totally different.

Now, before you go off the deep end at me, I cannot imagine my life without
my father. I cannot imagine our girls growing up with their father only as
a visitor. I've been a teacher for a long time. I know how important BOTH
parents are to a child's well being. IF a divorce has to take place, I
think shared custody--true shared custody, legally enforced--is the only way
to go. Because children need both parents involved in their lives.


I think
Nature set things up so there are 2 parents for a reason. And changing
the
system from "fathers are just wallets with penises" to "mothers are
just
holes for babies to come out" is not a solution.

Mothers are also good at feeding babies, and nurturing kids through the
first years. Mothering is not as good at teaching children to survive
and prosper in the real world.

That's why they need both parents, Bob.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
I am as disgusted with the system as you are, Bob. I, however, do not
agree
with you that the solution to the problem is eliminating mothers from
their
children's lives just the way the system now eliminates fathers.

That red herring doesn't fly, toots.

Red herring?

"toots"?


Bob generally favors 2 parent homes and supports the child's right to
both parents. However, a growing pile of research tends to show that
the father is by far more important to the child's success in school,
relationships, crime avoidance, pregnancy avoidance, DV avoidance, jobs,
and every measurable way. Kids raised with father and mother or just
with father succeed. Kids raised with mother headed homes or even homes
with mother and her latest "husband" are less likely to succeed.

The problem is, Bob, that there has not been a period of thime where
father-headed single parent households have been the norm. If/when this
happens, there will be studies showing that other sociological problems have
developed because the mother half of the parenting has been missing. Right
now, the majority of father-headed households are that way because the
father fought for that right, so we would tend to see motivated fathers in
these households. (My brother is a single dad, and a very good one.) So
studies *would* tend to show father-headed households in a positive light.
If father-headed households became the default, we might see something
totally different.

Now, before you go off the deep end at me, I cannot imagine my life without
my father. I cannot imagine our girls growing up with their father only as
a visitor. I've been a teacher for a long time. I know how important BOTH
parents are to a child's well being. IF a divorce has to take place, I
think shared custody--true shared custody, legally enforced--is the only way
to go. Because children need both parents involved in their lives.


I think
Nature set things up so there are 2 parents for a reason. And changing
the
system from "fathers are just wallets with penises" to "mothers are
just
holes for babies to come out" is not a solution.

Mothers are also good at feeding babies, and nurturing kids through the
first years. Mothering is not as good at teaching children to survive
and prosper in the real world.

That's why they need both parents, Bob.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
I am as disgusted with the system as you are, Bob. I, however, do not
agree
with you that the solution to the problem is eliminating mothers from
their
children's lives just the way the system now eliminates fathers.

That red herring doesn't fly, toots.

Red herring?

"toots"?


Bob generally favors 2 parent homes and supports the child's right to
both parents. However, a growing pile of research tends to show that
the father is by far more important to the child's success in school,
relationships, crime avoidance, pregnancy avoidance, DV avoidance, jobs,
and every measurable way. Kids raised with father and mother or just
with father succeed. Kids raised with mother headed homes or even homes
with mother and her latest "husband" are less likely to succeed.

The problem is, Bob, that there has not been a period of thime where
father-headed single parent households have been the norm. If/when this
happens, there will be studies showing that other sociological problems have
developed because the mother half of the parenting has been missing. Right
now, the majority of father-headed households are that way because the
father fought for that right, so we would tend to see motivated fathers in
these households. (My brother is a single dad, and a very good one.) So
studies *would* tend to show father-headed households in a positive light.
If father-headed households became the default, we might see something
totally different.

Now, before you go off the deep end at me, I cannot imagine my life without
my father. I cannot imagine our girls growing up with their father only as
a visitor. I've been a teacher for a long time. I know how important BOTH
parents are to a child's well being. IF a divorce has to take place, I
think shared custody--true shared custody, legally enforced--is the only way
to go. Because children need both parents involved in their lives.


I think
Nature set things up so there are 2 parents for a reason. And changing
the
system from "fathers are just wallets with penises" to "mothers are
just
holes for babies to come out" is not a solution.

Mothers are also good at feeding babies, and nurturing kids through the
first years. Mothering is not as good at teaching children to survive
and prosper in the real world.

That's why they need both parents, Bob.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Don wrote:
If femroids can't or won't control their wombs, the Scott Peterson
approach is the way to go.

That's pretty sick man. You lose all credibility when you come out with
**** like that.

LOL. Not that long ago MEN took action to protect ourselves and our
families. Now there are far too many wusses.


So you condone Scott Peterson's alleged actions and if a man does not kill
his wife he is a wuss. You start off with some good points and then talk
out of your ass. This is exactly the reason why fathers rights movement
never gets anywhere.


btw - where did Kerry make that speech below? I want to see if I can
find
the sound bite so I can pass it on.

DUH, the link is on the quote.


DUH, I asked where he actually made the speech so I can find if the
sound-audio bite. The link has the date but not the location, forum in
which he made the quote nor an audio stream.


When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Don wrote:
If femroids can't or won't control their wombs, the Scott Peterson
approach is the way to go.

That's pretty sick man. You lose all credibility when you come out with
**** like that.

LOL. Not that long ago MEN took action to protect ourselves and our
families. Now there are far too many wusses.


So you condone Scott Peterson's alleged actions and if a man does not kill
his wife he is a wuss. You start off with some good points and then talk
out of your ass. This is exactly the reason why fathers rights movement
never gets anywhere.


btw - where did Kerry make that speech below? I want to see if I can
find
the sound bite so I can pass it on.

DUH, the link is on the quote.


DUH, I asked where he actually made the speech so I can find if the
sound-audio bite. The link has the date but not the location, forum in
which he made the quote nor an audio stream.


When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Don wrote:
If femroids can't or won't control their wombs, the Scott Peterson
approach is the way to go.

That's pretty sick man. You lose all credibility when you come out with
**** like that.

LOL. Not that long ago MEN took action to protect ourselves and our
families. Now there are far too many wusses.


So you condone Scott Peterson's alleged actions and if a man does not kill
his wife he is a wuss. You start off with some good points and then talk
out of your ass. This is exactly the reason why fathers rights movement
never gets anywhere.


btw - where did Kerry make that speech below? I want to see if I can
find
the sound bite so I can pass it on.

DUH, the link is on the quote.


DUH, I asked where he actually made the speech so I can find if the
sound-audio bite. The link has the date but not the location, forum in
which he made the quote nor an audio stream.


When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/