CS and women's greed strikes again..

Don wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Don wrote:

I agree with what you are saying but my point was only in extreme cases.

1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting
pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children
like that.

Too late, the baby is already born. Father will not take custody, will
not
shared parent and maybe even dissappears. Working mother with child
turns
to the state for help since can't make ends meet. The masses will in
turn
insist the government do something about it rather than pick up the tab.

Boo Hoo. Cry me a river.

The bitch ****ed herself up. Forcing taxpayers to pick up her bills
only encourages her and a million of her sisters to do it again.


The mother might be a "bitch who ****ed herself up" but it is not the childs
fault.

Boo Hoo, Cry me a river.


The child should not be made to live homeless or starving because of
the parents failure.

The MOTHER's failure. SHE and SHE ALONE had "a woman's right to choose,
an option to abandon, an option to adopt out.

She has 100% RESPONSIBILITY to support the child that SHE AND SHE ALONE
decided to bring into the world.


The father must take custody of the child but if he
does not want to take custody, I as a taxpayer do not want to pay for the
parents responsibility.

Me neither. That's a feminis/liberal crybaby approach to responsibility.


If he has the ability to support the child but will
not take custody of the child then he should pay to support it when the
mother cannot.

It's HER problem. It's HER decision. It's HER RESPONSIBILITY. Let HER
deal with it.

My taxes are high enough without having support everyone elses sexual
escapades.

Mine too. Tell her to get a ****ing job or starve.


This is the only case where I believe at least some form of basic
necessity
support rather than let the taxpayers pick up the tab. But only if the
father has the means to do so. If both do not have the means then ok
taxpayers may need to pick up the tab. Although I do believe more can
be
done with national charities with government oversight and promotion.

ONLY she had "a woman's right to choose." The father had no rights and
no choice whether to become a father. He has no option to abandon the
child, nor to put it up for adoption.

In many of these cases abortion ought not be a choice. There is far too
much pansy ass whining and catering to ****ed up bitches.

Some, including me say that is murder. Again punishing the child for the
parents mistakes. The pansy asses are the parents that seek abortion rather
than the challenge of raising a child.

Say what you like. The majority of children being born in California
today are by single mothers. Other states are catching up fast. SHE is
the one hurting her child.


Bottomline support only where the working father does not want the child
and
the working mother cannot support herself.

Nope, all so-called "child support" is robbing the man's MONEY to give
to a slut whore who couldn't or wouldn't take responsibility for her
womb, it's not supporting the child.

Your missing the point since he should have custody therefore would not be
paying anything. This all has to do in cases where the father refuses to
take his children and the mother is unable to support them.

No, you're missing the pint. SHE IS RESPONSIBLE for her decisions and
for her child. SHE has exclusive legal right to decide if the child
will be crated.

I support equal rights to all decisions regarding our children, BTW, but
under current law only she may decide, and only she is responsible for
her choices.


Also if you cannot afford to
care for the child you give up custody to the parent that can care for
the
child. If the other parent is unwilling then the taxpayers should not
have
to pick up the tab and hence basic support.

If SHE can't or won't get off her fat lazy ass and get a job to support
her child she can bring her child to it's father for support as women
have been doing for millions of years.

If you go back and read my post I said the mother is working but cannot
support the child and the father refuses to take custody.

My wife worked at 2 jobs and sometimes 3, and supported her children.
Your hypothetical lazy bitch has nobody to blame but herself.


I agree with your points in most cases except where the father wants
nothing
to do with the child and the working mother cannot support herself.

She ought to have had an agreement with the father before she got
herself pregnant, before she exercised "a woman's right to choose" and
carried the child, before she chose not to give the child for adoption.

An agreement for adoption or custody arrangement before sleeping with
someone. Makes sense but will rarely happen in the real world.

Absolutely! It's been done for centuries, and still is in much of the
"real world."


Unfortunately your views are extreme in our feminist society and
therefore
unlikely any politician will take on your cause.

Yes, feminized politicians, like Kerry for example, are pansy ass
femroids who cater to every damn thing feminists want and screw men and
children with the full weight of the government. No MAN ought to vote
for any of them.

No doubt. Fathers should make this an issue with Kerry so when he loses it
will be remember in the media that fathers in particular were a factor in
his loss. If the media discussed such an issue for years to come we may see
politicians start actually catering to men.

Likely however, if fathers were a factor in Kerry's loss the media would not
cover it and use some other lame excuse for his loss.

Don't expect the media to mention it. They are more feminized than
politicians. Even FOX and other "republican" media are feminazis.


Shared parenting is at
least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is
for
all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring
things
back to somewhere in the middle.

If the female files for divorce she ought to get the clothes on her
back, and that's all. If any judge cares at all for "the best interest
of the child" she would not break up the family, nor reward the bitch
who does so. The parent who files the divorce (90% female) gets no
kids, no custody, no house, and none of the family's assets.

You didn't comment on that one.

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

Bob
--

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/

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.

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.


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.

Bob

--

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/

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.

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.


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.

Bob

--

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/

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.

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.


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.

Bob

--

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/

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.

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.


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.

Bob

--

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:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

No doubt. Fathers should make this an issue with Kerry so when he loses
it
will be remember in the media that fathers in particular were a factor
in
his loss. If the media discussed such an issue for years to come we may
see
politicians start actually catering to men.

Likely however, if fathers were a factor in Kerry's loss the media would
not
cover it and use some other lame excuse for his loss.

Don't expect the media to mention it. They are more feminized than
politicians. Even FOX and other "republican" media are feminazis.


I get ****ed when I hear people claim that Foxnews is conservative. When
they actually are only slightly less liberal than the rest of the liberal
media.

Shared parenting is at
least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is
for
all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring
things
back to somewhere in the middle.

If the female files for divorce she ought to get the clothes on her
back, and that's all. If any judge cares at all for "the best interest
of the child" she would not break up the family, nor reward the bitch
who does so. The parent who files the divorce (90% female) gets no
kids, no custody, no house, and none of the family's assets.

You didn't comment on that one.


Did not comment on for which I agree. However to change the first line,
"If the female files for divorce without any PROVEN allegations of abuse".

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.

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.

Bob
--

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:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

No doubt. Fathers should make this an issue with Kerry so when he loses
it
will be remember in the media that fathers in particular were a factor
in
his loss. If the media discussed such an issue for years to come we may
see
politicians start actually catering to men.

Likely however, if fathers were a factor in Kerry's loss the media would
not
cover it and use some other lame excuse for his loss.

Don't expect the media to mention it. They are more feminized than
politicians. Even FOX and other "republican" media are feminazis.


I get ****ed when I hear people claim that Foxnews is conservative. When
they actually are only slightly less liberal than the rest of the liberal
media.

Shared parenting is at
least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is
for
all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring
things
back to somewhere in the middle.

If the female files for divorce she ought to get the clothes on her
back, and that's all. If any judge cares at all for "the best interest
of the child" she would not break up the family, nor reward the bitch
who does so. The parent who files the divorce (90% female) gets no
kids, no custody, no house, and none of the family's assets.

You didn't comment on that one.


Did not comment on for which I agree. However to change the first line,
"If the female files for divorce without any PROVEN allegations of abuse".

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.

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.

Bob
--

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:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

No doubt. Fathers should make this an issue with Kerry so when he loses
it
will be remember in the media that fathers in particular were a factor
in
his loss. If the media discussed such an issue for years to come we may
see
politicians start actually catering to men.

Likely however, if fathers were a factor in Kerry's loss the media would
not
cover it and use some other lame excuse for his loss.

Don't expect the media to mention it. They are more feminized than
politicians. Even FOX and other "republican" media are feminazis.


I get ****ed when I hear people claim that Foxnews is conservative. When
they actually are only slightly less liberal than the rest of the liberal
media.

Shared parenting is at
least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is
for
all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring
things
back to somewhere in the middle.

If the female files for divorce she ought to get the clothes on her
back, and that's all. If any judge cares at all for "the best interest
of the child" she would not break up the family, nor reward the bitch
who does so. The parent who files the divorce (90% female) gets no
kids, no custody, no house, and none of the family's assets.

You didn't comment on that one.


Did not comment on for which I agree. However to change the first line,
"If the female files for divorce without any PROVEN allegations of abuse".

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.

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.

Bob
--

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:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

No doubt. Fathers should make this an issue with Kerry so when he loses
it
will be remember in the media that fathers in particular were a factor
in
his loss. If the media discussed such an issue for years to come we may
see
politicians start actually catering to men.

Likely however, if fathers were a factor in Kerry's loss the media would
not
cover it and use some other lame excuse for his loss.

Don't expect the media to mention it. They are more feminized than
politicians. Even FOX and other "republican" media are feminazis.


I get ****ed when I hear people claim that Foxnews is conservative. When
they actually are only slightly less liberal than the rest of the liberal
media.

Shared parenting is at
least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is
for
all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring
things
back to somewhere in the middle.

If the female files for divorce she ought to get the clothes on her
back, and that's all. If any judge cares at all for "the best interest
of the child" she would not break up the family, nor reward the bitch
who does so. The parent who files the divorce (90% female) gets no
kids, no custody, no house, and none of the family's assets.

You didn't comment on that one.


Did not comment on for which I agree. However to change the first line,
"If the female files for divorce without any PROVEN allegations of abuse".

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.

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.

Bob
--

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/