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

Schwarzenegger's propaganda



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 6th 09, 08:52 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of a
child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established in
most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do you
think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though the wife
is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in
matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start the
paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the "benefit of
the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such process; and secondly,
what man in his right mind would voluntarily start a process that will
extort his money/freedom?

Ya gotta just LOVE the propaganda .............

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Resources...1/Default.aspx

  #2  
Old September 7th 09, 01:58 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of
a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established
in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do
you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though the
wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace! ONLY
in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the "benefit
of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such process; and
secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily start a process
that will extort his money/freedom?


Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or hiding
her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed births the
mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no idea who the
father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state where
the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is born. Even
then the child can be adopted out for money without the father's knowledge.

  #3  
Old September 8th 09, 12:49 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of
a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established
in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do
you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though
the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace!
ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the
"benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily start
a process that will extort his money/freedom?


Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or hiding
her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed births the
mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no idea who the
father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.


Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since the
mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with the
state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?



  #4  
Old September 8th 09, 06:27 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father
of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically
established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity
establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by both
parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do
you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though
the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace!
ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the
"benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
start a process that will extort his money/freedom?


Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or
hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed
births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no
idea who the father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.


Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?


The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.

  #5  
Old September 8th 09, 07:04 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?


The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.


OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage the
prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.

  #6  
Old September 8th 09, 08:26 PM posted to alt.child-support
Kenneth s.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
om...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?


The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.


OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage the
prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.


The only advantage to the man in registering as the child's
father is the possibility that he will be able to have some kind of
relationship with the child, even if the mother doesn't want this.
However, I very much doubt whether this is worth much. The system is
notoriously lax about enforcing visitation, by contrast with the huge
amount of resources devoted to enforcing "child support."

I've seen comments from CS officials indicating that the
father registration provision is nothing more than a deliberate trap
for the unwary. The idea is that, immediately after a child is born,
the man who thinks he is the father will be inordinately proud of his
situation, and will want to be identified as the father. But the
bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get
18+ years of "child support" from him.
  #7  
Old September 9th 09, 02:18 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father
helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.


OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage
the
prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.


The only advantage to the man in registering as the child's
father is the possibility that he will be able to have some kind of
relationship with the child, even if the mother doesn't want this.
However, I very much doubt whether this is worth much. The system is
notoriously lax about enforcing visitation, by contrast with the huge
amount of resources devoted to enforcing "child support."

I've seen comments from CS officials indicating that the
father registration provision is nothing more than a deliberate trap
for the unwary. The idea is that, immediately after a child is born,
the man who thinks he is the father will be inordinately proud of his
situation, and will want to be identified as the father. But the
bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get
18+ years of "child support" from him.


The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider
and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but
that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal.

Phil #3

  #8  
Old September 9th 09, 06:04 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthlink .com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]


[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and
vocal.


That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1)
men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not
and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in
front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized
hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right
direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much
like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds
the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to
another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father
stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the
Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and
utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly
30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising
an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example
of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor
Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for
insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But
whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a
peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
into the ring with the girls.

  #9  
Old September 10th 09, 04:45 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father
helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.


OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage
the
prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.


The only advantage to the man in registering as the child's
father is the possibility that he will be able to have some kind of
relationship with the child, even if the mother doesn't want this.
However, I very much doubt whether this is worth much. The system is
notoriously lax about enforcing visitation, by contrast with the huge
amount of resources devoted to enforcing "child support."

I've seen comments from CS officials indicating that the
father registration provision is nothing more than a deliberate trap
for the unwary. The idea is that, immediately after a child is born,
the man who thinks he is the father will be inordinately proud of his
situation, and will want to be identified as the father. But the
bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get
18+ years of "child support" from him.


Precisely! Just the fact that the man would need to register in order to
excercise this so-called "right" in the first place is a clear indication
that the mother already opposes any such rights that he may have. Which begs
the question: why register?

  #10  
Old September 10th 09, 04:50 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father
of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically
established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity
establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by
both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed,
do you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even
though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast
furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the
"benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
start a process that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or
hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed
births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no
idea who the father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.


Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?


The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.


And then you woke up.

1. The only "parental" right is mother's right.
2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support" is a
ridiculous concept.
3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken.


 




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
CA - Schwarzenegger's Miscreant Moms (aka - Daddy, git your shovel) Dusty Child Support 0 August 26th 06 08:02 AM
Governor Schwarzenegger's State of the State Address 01/05/2005 [email protected] Solutions 0 January 6th 05 07:10 AM
ABC propaganda on aspartame john Kids Health 17 September 18th 04 08:17 PM
Debate v Propaganda Kane Spanking 2 September 14th 04 07:00 PM
Governor Schwarzenegger's Remarks at the Republican National Convention Big Brother Solutions 0 September 2nd 04 04:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 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.