A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CS and women's greed strikes again..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 18th 04, 02:53 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..


"Bob" wrote in message
...
Don wrote:
This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice

perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with

no
child support changing hands.


Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.


Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture
like they are now.


If any parent is unable or unwilling to do
such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only

be
for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support

which
should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is

for
intact families.


The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment
that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine
of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten.


I agree up until this point.

You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of
"absentee child support" is wrong.


What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take
full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make
ends meet? The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers
footing the bill. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the
absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared
parenting or take complete custody of the child.






  #22  
Old June 18th 04, 03:19 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..

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

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with
no child support changing hands.


Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture
like they are now.


For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so
for the sake of our children.


If any parent is unable or unwilling to do
such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only
be
for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support
which
should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is
for
intact families.


The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment
that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine
of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten.


I agree up until this point.


You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of
"absentee child support" is wrong.



What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take
full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make
ends meet?


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.
2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their
fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay
there and help raise the child.


The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers
footing the bill.


Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands"
forced to support women who don't want to work.


That is unacceptable and this is the case where the
absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared
parenting or take complete custody of the child.


Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many
*******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them,
or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts
children.

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/

  #23  
Old June 18th 04, 03:19 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..

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

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with
no child support changing hands.


Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture
like they are now.


For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so
for the sake of our children.


If any parent is unable or unwilling to do
such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only
be
for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support
which
should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is
for
intact families.


The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment
that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine
of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten.


I agree up until this point.


You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of
"absentee child support" is wrong.



What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take
full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make
ends meet?


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.
2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their
fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay
there and help raise the child.


The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers
footing the bill.


Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands"
forced to support women who don't want to work.


That is unacceptable and this is the case where the
absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared
parenting or take complete custody of the child.


Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many
*******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them,
or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts
children.

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/

  #24  
Old June 18th 04, 03:19 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..

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

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with
no child support changing hands.


Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture
like they are now.


For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so
for the sake of our children.


If any parent is unable or unwilling to do
such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only
be
for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support
which
should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is
for
intact families.


The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment
that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine
of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten.


I agree up until this point.


You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of
"absentee child support" is wrong.



What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take
full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make
ends meet?


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.
2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their
fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay
there and help raise the child.


The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers
footing the bill.


Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands"
forced to support women who don't want to work.


That is unacceptable and this is the case where the
absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared
parenting or take complete custody of the child.


Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many
*******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them,
or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts
children.

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/

  #25  
Old June 18th 04, 03:19 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..

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

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with
no child support changing hands.


Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture
like they are now.


For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so
for the sake of our children.


If any parent is unable or unwilling to do
such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only
be
for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support
which
should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is
for
intact families.


The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment
that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine
of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten.


I agree up until this point.


You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of
"absentee child support" is wrong.



What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take
full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make
ends meet?


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.
2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their
fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay
there and help raise the child.


The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers
footing the bill.


Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands"
forced to support women who don't want to work.


That is unacceptable and this is the case where the
absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared
parenting or take complete custody of the child.


Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many
*******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them,
or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts
children.

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/

  #26  
Old June 18th 04, 04:28 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..

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.

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.

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

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

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

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting

with
no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list

of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the

picture
like they are now.


For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so
for the sake of our children.


If any parent is unable or unwilling to do
such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only
be
for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support
which
should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it

is
for
intact families.

The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment
that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine
of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten.


I agree up until this point.


You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of
"absentee child support" is wrong.



What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take
full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to

make
ends meet?


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 now she is pregnant and has the baby. F

2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their
fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay
there and help raise the child.


The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers
footing the bill.


Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands"
forced to support women who don't want to work.


That is unacceptable and this is the case where the
absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept

shared
parenting or take complete custody of the child.


Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many
*******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them,
or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts
children.

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/



  #27  
Old June 18th 04, 04:28 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..

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.

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.

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

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

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

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting

with
no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list

of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the

picture
like they are now.


For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so
for the sake of our children.


If any parent is unable or unwilling to do
such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only
be
for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support
which
should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it

is
for
intact families.

The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment
that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine
of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten.


I agree up until this point.


You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of
"absentee child support" is wrong.



What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take
full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to

make
ends meet?


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 now she is pregnant and has the baby. F

2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their
fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay
there and help raise the child.


The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers
footing the bill.


Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands"
forced to support women who don't want to work.


That is unacceptable and this is the case where the
absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept

shared
parenting or take complete custody of the child.


Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many
*******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them,
or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts
children.

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/



  #28  
Old June 18th 04, 04:28 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..

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.

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.

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

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

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

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting

with
no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list

of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the

picture
like they are now.


For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so
for the sake of our children.


If any parent is unable or unwilling to do
such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only
be
for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support
which
should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it

is
for
intact families.

The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment
that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine
of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten.


I agree up until this point.


You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of
"absentee child support" is wrong.



What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take
full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to

make
ends meet?


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 now she is pregnant and has the baby. F

2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their
fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay
there and help raise the child.


The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers
footing the bill.


Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands"
forced to support women who don't want to work.


That is unacceptable and this is the case where the
absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept

shared
parenting or take complete custody of the child.


Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many
*******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them,
or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts
children.

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/



  #29  
Old June 18th 04, 04:28 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..

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.

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.

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

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

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

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting

with
no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list

of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the

picture
like they are now.


For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so
for the sake of our children.


If any parent is unable or unwilling to do
such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only
be
for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support
which
should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it

is
for
intact families.

The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment
that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine
of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten.


I agree up until this point.


You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of
"absentee child support" is wrong.



What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take
full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to

make
ends meet?


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 now she is pregnant and has the baby. F

2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their
fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay
there and help raise the child.


The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers
footing the bill.


Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands"
forced to support women who don't want to work.


That is unacceptable and this is the case where the
absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept

shared
parenting or take complete custody of the child.


Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many
*******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them,
or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts
children.

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/



  #30  
Old June 18th 04, 04:48 PM
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS and women's greed strikes again..


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

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting

with
no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list

of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the

picture
like they are now.


For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.


Ok, Bob, you knew someone was going to ask, so I'm asking. Where are the
studies showing this? And I do mean studies, not opinions.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It's Not About Kids, It's About Women's Choices GudGye11 Child Support 3 March 19th 04 06:10 AM
Lookin' For Women's Input . . . Bob Whiteside Child Support 90 September 8th 03 05:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.