Child support - who needs it?

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven"

The sex is great, the conversations are even better, and we
give all of ourselves to each other. Life is damned good.

But, since you are *such a fool* as to ASSume that the small
facet of myself that is appropriate to these issues is *all*
of me, well, its no wonder that you maintain the status of
*willfully and ignorantly foolish ASSumer*.

You know *nothing*, and you're too ****in' *dumb* to even take
your own *hypocritical* " advice ". Hypocrite much ? Yes...
you do.

You're funny. Pathetic, but funny.

Rambler

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
From my perspective, the NCP should pay more that 50% of the cost
associated with the upbringing of the child/children. Why? Because
it takes a hell of a lot more energy than $$$'s to raise the kids.

No problem. If the " energy " is *too much* for you, then hand
over the kids to Dad, and pay *him* 70% of the " costs "...

Again, here we have a wonderful example of a woman who demands that
men *be responsible for her sole choices*...

Kahlooless ...

Yes, you are. As you again prove that you *cannot* refute/debate
the *topic*.

Thank you for continuing to display your deep *inabilities*.

You're still funny. Atually, I made this the topic, so I am on topic. Ah,
the number of times when I personally have had you twist in the wind.

I believe MOD is male.

Yet, you could be wrong...

Yet I am not, because MOD wrote that his ex-wife did x y and z. Now, I
realize that with teh new love of your life, it could be possible that both
of you are male, but for some reason I have to think that his was
traditional marraige.

Oh, that isn't attacking the messenger, that is debating the issue.

And, male feminists are among the worst of sexist scum. Their
self hating sex makes no difference to their *views*, or their
views being offal.

Yes, I know that feminist male rant that follows to cover-up your
ineptitude.

Wow, I predicted that accurately. Would that be because you are a broken
record? I wonder, Andre, is this vitriole like viagra for you, the only way
to get it up. To be so insecure in one's gender that you have to lash out
at anything that is not a die-hard, union card carrying male is usually the
sign of a homosexual.

No, just yours, as you were *unable* to debate/refute the *topic*.

Actually, I proved the topic.

Consistancy is so important. Thank you for continuing to be
*unable* to deal in *issues*...

laughs

I will give you the consistency one ... you are consistently clueless.

Rambler

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
From my perspective, the NCP should pay more that 50% of the cost
associated with the upbringing of the child/children. Why? Because
it takes a hell of a lot more energy than $$$'s to raise the kids.

No problem. If the " energy " is *too much* for you, then hand
over the kids to Dad, and pay *him* 70% of the " costs "...

Again, here we have a wonderful example of a woman who demands that
men *be responsible for her sole choices*...

Kahlooless ...

Yes, you are. As you again prove that you *cannot* refute/debate
the *topic*.

Thank you for continuing to display your deep *inabilities*.

You're still funny. Atually, I made this the topic, so I am on topic. Ah,
the number of times when I personally have had you twist in the wind.

I believe MOD is male.

Yet, you could be wrong...

Yet I am not, because MOD wrote that his ex-wife did x y and z. Now, I
realize that with teh new love of your life, it could be possible that both
of you are male, but for some reason I have to think that his was
traditional marraige.

Oh, that isn't attacking the messenger, that is debating the issue.

And, male feminists are among the worst of sexist scum. Their
self hating sex makes no difference to their *views*, or their
views being offal.

Yes, I know that feminist male rant that follows to cover-up your
ineptitude.

Wow, I predicted that accurately. Would that be because you are a broken
record? I wonder, Andre, is this vitriole like viagra for you, the only way
to get it up. To be so insecure in one's gender that you have to lash out
at anything that is not a die-hard, union card carrying male is usually the
sign of a homosexual.

No, just yours, as you were *unable* to debate/refute the *topic*.

Actually, I proved the topic.

Consistancy is so important. Thank you for continuing to be
*unable* to deal in *issues*...

laughs

I will give you the consistency one ... you are consistently clueless.

Rambler

"Krista" ) top-posted *away* from the points
I raised, as she *couldn't* deal with them:

Way to twist every single sentence I wrote so it means what YOU want and
not what *I* wrote...

yawn *Empty* Festering Femmeroid top-posting ASSertions.

Way to *prove* your claims...

Oh, wait a sec... you *failed* to even try to do that...

Thanks for making my point for me, once again.

You absolutely just proved my point there, genius.

projection

STEP AWAY FROM THE GENERALIZATIONS and you will see that I FREAKING
AGREE WITH YOU!

No, you don't. You just want to *look like you do*.

Let me spell it out for you in the simplest terms possible, so I can
watch you twist my words again so you can go on believe in your little
fantasy world that all women want to keep men's input out of the
childbearing decisions...

LOL ! Way to ASSume more *wrongly*...

Let me make this real clear, in small words, so that even WomenFirsters
like you can grasp it:

I have NO problem with a woman choosing to give birth- *As long as
any and all of the presumed responsibility for HER SOLE CHOICE is
measured out the same way*. UNLESS she got the *express and explicit,
*post-coital* consent of the guy. Thats called, marriage.

What happened, did some woman have an abortion when you wanted the kid?

Nope. Wrong again, oh *personalising projector*.

But, thanks for showing me that you, also, CANNOT debate/refute
*the topic*, so that you HAVE TO move to *personalities*.

But, in sinking that low, you improved your error rate... not a bit.
You're still 100% WRONG.

laughs

That happened to my husband and you know what??

I absolutely *don't care*.

HE GOT OVER IT. Sure, he still thinks about that child, just as I think
about the daughter my ex-boyfriend and I relinquished for adoption, but he
doesn't think all women are evil like you seem to.

" seem to " being your *deliberately obtuse operative words*...

MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL SAY IN WHETHER OR NOT A CHILD (THAT HAS
BOTH OF THEIR DNA) IS BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD.

I'll even run ahead of you. While single women whelping sprogs is absolute
*anuse of the children*, deliberately depriving them of the most important
parent, the father, I wouldn't make it illegal, or any such.

I'd merely not *reward* it a sou, or a farthing, either.
Given the shrill cries of da wimmins for their due " child support ",
that alone ought to be plenty of deterrent.

IN THE EVENT THEY CANNOT AGREE, THE PROSPECTIVE LIFE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
MATURE AND THE PARENT WHO WANTS IT SHOULD TAKE IT AND RAISE IT.

So, if she wants an abortion, and he doesn't, his wish gets precedence ?
How you gonna legally enforce that, when modern wimmin's groups shrilly
demand that woman do whatever they want, and men pay for it all... ?

There, is that clear enough for you, or do I need to be monosyllabic?

No, just reality based.

Yes, I'm getting a little rude, I'm a little ****ed that you have turned
everything I said into something completely opposite of what I meant.

LOL ! Translation: " I'm ****ed that you saw so easily through my
cow****. "

Got it.

All
right, I will explicate my points in detail, each and every one in turn...

This should be a laugh...

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Krista" ) writes:
Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.

I agree that *is* wrong.

Now, lets watch you *equivicate away* from that initial point...

I think men should have some say, after all, they
*are* just as responsible for the child being there, as is the woman.

WRONG. NO man can *make* a woman carry to term, if *she doesn't want
to*, and NO man can make a woman NOT carry to term, *if she doesn't
want to*.

I SAID, I *think* men *should* have as much say, I know they don't.
I think that's wrong.

So, whats your *legal mechanism* to make your " plan " work ?

The devil is in the details...

But, thanks for showing us that, when it comes to *women*, you
want to have it *both ways*...

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Have WHAT both ways?

Choice hers. Money, from him to her...

If she didn't want to have a kid, she should have protected herself
better.

So, you *haven't heard of WOMEN's post-coital choices*....

Like RU-486, abortion, legal and unilateral adopting out, and legal
and unilateral infant abandon laws...

BTW, theres *nothing* about those last two that is limited to
their use by women, only...

Of course I have heard of them, I would have to live under a rock not to.

Many Baby Feminists who infest soc.men tend to deny that woman have any
more choices than do men, IOW, zero, post-coital.

I just don't agree that women should be able to "unilaterally" make those
choices. They made that baby TOGETHER,

Bzt. You just flunked Biology 101.

The man and woman, together, make a *zygote*. Beyond that point, the
man's participation is wholly non-biological, and at present, is no
more and no less than *what she will allow*...

they should decide it's future TOGETHER, if she didn't want to take
that chance she should have abstained from sex!

Does that include *you*, given your comments about your men who fathered
children with you ?

Uh huh...

If he didn't, the same goes for him.

Thanks for showing that you demand that *men be responsible for women's
POST-COITAL choices...

NO ONE is responsible for another person's choices, I was merely pointing
out that if he didn't want to change getting a woman pregnant, he shoud
have protected his DNA better.

Funny how you *failed* to mention that *the woman needed to " protect "
her DNA, too*...

Omissions of that sort are common from the Baby Feminists...

The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

I resent this remark.

Tough ! You're NOT " all women. " Deal with it.

No, I'm not ALL women, *I* never said I was!

Non sequitur. In which case, your " resentment " was typical feminised
emotive meaningless twaddle.

But, thanks for showing that, when a debate on a topic is in hand,
you *cannot* stick with it, and you just *have to* emote out.

How... grade one.

I said YOU can't generalize about women because YOU DON'T KNOW!

laughs Indeed I *do*, chykkie. *Thats* what has your panties in
a bunch.

The social data is well and truely IN, and it all shows quite
conclusively that the single mommie and " no fault " divorce
" revolutions " have been a failure greater than that of, say,
Communism. It figures, as both were movements based not on facts
or reality, but bogus *ideology*.

Go look up " Lysenko-ism " sometime...

You can't possibly know what motivates women as a whole.

Ibid.

Not all women are greedy, not all women unilaterlly decided anything
about their children, even I, being a woman, can't say what motivates
other women, sure, some are motivated by greed, just like some men
and women use their children as pawns against the other parent, but that
doesn't mean all, or even most do that.

Non sequitur. Go look up the date on " pushed out fathers ". Add in
" paternity *fraud*. " Just those two alone, speak to MILLIONS of
lying, deceitful, and totally without honour women.

And, more in wimmin's lobby groups, demanding that women *not be
held accountable* for their actions...

See NOW, NARAL, et al...

Your generalizations don't hold up.

yawn Empty, and *clueless* assertion.

Case dis-MSed.

I *DID NOT EVER* unilaterally decide to have ANY of my children.

Really ? What *right of veto* did they have *over your decision
making process* ?

... Exactly.

We each had equal "right of veto" over each others decision making
processes.

And, had you disagreed with them, their power to *make that veto*
stick would have been... ?

Exactly. You were as stuck *as you wanted to be*. Period.

They were all discussed with their prospective fathers, and in
the middle one's case, I even offered him the option of not being
responsible for her.

Which, *under the law*, would hold up only *as long as you wanted it
to*...

No, actually, if he'd terminated his rights,

Note that you failed to mention this, above...

and I'd okayed it in the first
place (which I agree is f'd up that women have the right to veto the
termination of men's parental rights, but I understand the converse also,
and the reason that "rule" is in place), I couldn't later revoke that just
because I felt like it, got ****ed, decided I wanted the money, etc. Once
the decision is made, it's final. At least where I live.

On a revocation, indeed. But, as I said, you *failed* to mention that
that step was a prospect, and, as we can note, it didn't come to pass...

HE wanted to get married, and then HE abused me until
I couldn't take it anymore and left when our daughter was 9 months old.

shrug *You* chose him....

Which is SO not the point...

Wrong. You chose him, you chose to bear the child...

The common theme is... *you got to choose*...

Because of who he is and how he is, even though I offered him reduced
child support, etc. he chose to pay the full amount, but in the
meantime,
instead of being honest with me, he lies to me about getting raises and
then whines about how he never gets to see his daughter because his car
is in bad shape, he can't afford to fix it, etc, etc, etc.

Boo hoo. You chose him. And, thanks for showing us all that, your claim
of lower payments notwithstanding, when the stuff hit the fan, *your
main issue* is *his delivery of money to YOU*...

Thanks for making my point for me...

Huh? How exactly do you get that from what I said? When what stuff hit
what fan??? His car breaking down? You're not making any sense.

Read on...

HE CHOSE to pay the full amount. HE CHOSE not to terminate his rights, NOT
ME.

Non sequitur. You could have had the hospital write " father: unknown "
on the birth certificate, and that act alone, would have *prevented
him from having any rights/responsibilities* wrt said child.

That action, too, was wholly within your total power.

I don't care if he gets raises up the wazoo, he can have them, I don't
care to have my child support raised, it DOES NOT MATTER TO ME. I was
saying that he could at least BE HONEST with me about them,

Who cares ? You're trying to tell him *how he should act* on a matter
you *claim* is of no interest to you.

People who display real disinterest to a topic, simply... don't care.

instead of
trying to GUILT TRIP ME INTO FEELING BAD THAT HE HAS TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT.

No one can take you on a guilt trip that you don't chose to go on...

Be responsible for... yourself.

My current husband and I live on $20,000/year raising two children
(ages 3.5 and 22 months) and he can't even support himself, alone,

Why *should he* ? Can *you* ? Without the loot flowing from your
guy #1 ?

Uh huh...

Why shouldn't a 26 year old single male be able to live on $20,000/year?

What *business* is it of *yours* ?

Busy body.

I damn sure could, I'm making it on that little with a family, I could
if I was single too!

See ? You do so " care ". Pathologically so.

That $20,000/year INCLUDES the "loot" flowing from my ex,
thankyouverymuch.

You mean your $20,000. Not his $20,000.

on over $15,000 MORE than that without having to
whine about "poor, poor" him?

Well, you chose them both...

Get over yourself,

yawn More pathological " caring " from you.

I have no need to " get over muyself ". I have taken personal
responsibility for the choices in my life that I have actually made.

Try matching my credentials, ace.

yes, I chose them both, and the second one is FAR, FAR
superior to the first. You are again missing my point, but I shoudl be
expecting that by now.

How... Feminist of you. *Can't* make a point without personalising it...

My ex (the 26 year old single male) BRINGS HOME (after
taxes, child support taken out, etc.) $35,000/year. My husband and I
and two kids BRING HOME (after taxes, including child support and student
loans, etc.) $20,000/year. And he (my ex) can't fix his car, or see his
daughter more often than once a month because he can't "afford it"? That
doesn't fly, sorry.

Free Clue: You can control *your lifestyle*.

You CAN'T control *anyone else's*...

Once you realise that, and take it to your heart, you will twist
and turn in helpless female frustration, less...

And those figures are AFTER taxes, AND his figure
is AFTER the money he does pay me in CS. That is net income for both
families.

Gee. You've just discovered that *two households can't live as well as
one, on the same money*.

Your Nobel Prize For Economics is in the mail...

What two households? There is no two households...

Sigh: You and present husband: Household #1. Your ex: Household *#2*.

Duh !

My husband and I and
two kids live on less money per year than my single ex husband, how is that
two households living less well than one on the same money?

Who knows ? Who *cares* ? Are you still so *invested in your ex's DAY
to DAY LIFE* that you cannot let go of trying to, futilely, " control "
said day to day life ?

Amazing. Pathological, but amazing...

If THAT were the
case, we'd all be living on $55,000/year split between us instead of the
way it is now... But again, you're not making sense.

I understand that your control freak pathologies are getting in your
way. Calm down, take a Midol...

And some of our income is even in the form of student loans,
which we eventually have to pay back, so though it's income right now,
it
will be outflow later. I *COULD* take him to court and get his child
support increased. I thought about doing it for no other reason than I
was ****ed that he couldn't be honest with me, but I chose not to.

But, *you could have*... YOU had that *power to decide his fate*.

When did he *ever* have a similar power to decide *your fate* ?

Uh huh...

When you have custody. I know plenty of men who get custody of their kids.

Its still a 1/9 ratio. See www.now.org, to see how wrong NOW ( You
know, the main US wimmin's group ) sees that increase for fathers...

Oh, learn this phrase: " The plural of anecdote is NOT citation. "

Where I live, not so much, but in many other places there are a HUGE number

1/9 isn't " huge " Take remedial math 101. English, too.

of men being awarded custody, if for no other reason than in a backlash for
all the years women have been seen as the "more suitable home" for children
just because we have a vagina. Sure, I had that power,

Thats my *point*. Thank you for *conceeding it*, finally.

just like he has the power to try

ROTFLMAO !

So, you call " equal " *your power to dictate*, and *his " power "
to... TRY*...

laughs

and win custody from me and have me pay child support.

Statistically, women pay CS at lower rates than do men, and default
far more frequently...

IF he saw
her more often I would probably consider lowering his CS, or if he
stopped
seeing her altogether, but he has done neither, he continues to see her
about once a month, when it's convenient for him.

shrug *You chose him*... Did you find out, *before you chose to bear
a child*, what his potential was to be a father, if HE were to choose
that status ?

Uh huh...

I didn't choose to bear a child WE chose to bear a child.

Sophistry. As *already shown* his " choice " had exactly NO standing,
or power to be enforced with.

Only YOURS had those things...

I didn't even
choose to get pregnant, I was on birth control, and taking it regularly.

Nonsense. You chose to commit the act that leads to pregnancy. Any
sentient woman *must* acknowledge that *possibility*, and deal with
it.

Take Biology 101 for more data on this fact of human nature.

He told me he wanted to get married and have children.

And, *sticking to that order of things* didn't come to your mind ?
Amazing.

The next month I was pregnant (without going off BC).

So ? You, and *you alone* had a plethora of choices by which said
pregnancy had NO power to override your wishes...

Its churlish to complain about *what you distinctly chose*...

In a totally unrelated topic, later in our
relationship, when I was thinking about leaving him, he tried the get me
pregnant so i wouldn't be able to leave him,

ROTFLMAO ! So, again, YOU forgot about abortion, RU-486, et al.

How is his " getting you pregnant " going to result in your *having
a BABY*, if you *simply choose for it not to go that far ?

For that matter, lets say you do have the baby. Whats stopping you
from listing " father: unknown ", whats stopping you from adopting
it out, without a word to him, and whats stopping you from dropping
it off at a hospital, as per legal abandon laws ?

NOTHING ! So, stop bleating about things over which YOU had total
control. Sheesh.

I sometimes wonder if *he*
didn't make the choice to get pregnant, and then tamper with my BC pills...

Gee, like so many women do...

Equality. You hate it. laughs

As I said, totally irrelevant, and you'll probably find a way to twist that
against me, too. Still, HE CHOSE TO MARRY ME,

No, you *chose to marry EACH OTHER*.

You have a major personal issue with your *passive-agression*.

I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T WANT TO
GET MARRIED, HE WANTED TO, HE WAS VERY UPSET THAT I WANTED TO WAIT,
HE CHOSE THE RESPONSIBILITY,

What, he bashed you over the head with a club, and dragged you by the
hair to the Justice of the Peace, such that you have NO say over your
getting married, and to him ?

Amazing passive-agression on your part. How... *irresponsible*.

and then he shirked it, and abused me. However, he was still
the one who wanted to get pregnant, NOT ME, I was just the incubator.

Yep. Very passive-agressive on your part.

Be an *adult woman*. Be *responsible for what you wrought.

But then he found out how "hard" it is having a baby and he didn't want the
responsibility anymore... He wanted to be able to go out with his friends
and get a beer, on a moment's notice, he didn't want to worry about diapers
and baby drool, he wanted me to be the "good little wifey" barefoot, baby on
the hip, in the kichten, and silent unless spoken to. Sure, I'll admit, I
didn't know how he REALLY felt about women and children (that they were his
"property") until after we were married and had one on the way,

Thanks for showing that you *failed your responsibility to yourself* to
find out such things, before you let him drag you to the JoP...

but that is
because he told me what he thought I wanted to hear (his own words), and I
had nothing else to go on but what he told me.

Passive agressive COW**** ! Of course, you had plenty of ways to find
such things out. Simple observation, for one. Paying attention.

He said he wanted the same
things I did, and I believed him... Naive? Sure, but I didn't make that
mistake the second time.

Good. A pity you failed to learn your most important lesson from
your first time.

Its good that neither I nor my SO made that failure from our earlier
lives.

Even though he is supposed
to take her for all of Spring Break week and 42 days in the summer,
he has not and will not.

Ibid.

It's too difficult for him, he would have to
provide daycare and stuff, you know. Much easier to just leave her with
us
until he feels like having her visit and then asking us to put our plans
on
hold while he takes her for the weekend. Not to mention he shares a
room
with her and she's seen and heard him and his various girlfriends having
sex. But that's a whole other story. I should NEVER hear my three and
a
half year old daughter saying things like "Ooh, baby, come for me." and
"Shh, quiet, you'll wake the baby." while I'm drving her home from her
father's house.

Ibid.

Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is completely
getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just won't bear up.

LOL ! Yeah, they so " won't hold up " that you were UNABVLE even to TRY
to refute them...

laughs Go back to Baby Feminist school...

I am NOT a feminist.

Sure.....

Talk to my husband's ex wife and then tell ME I'm a feminist?
HA! You generalized that all women unilaterally decide to "whelp
kids" and I refuted that.

Nope. You didn't. You *claimed* it, but, as we see, the legal and societal
POWER to enforce any and all decisions on that, were yours, and *yours
alone*.

Feel free to SHOW what your guy would have been *legally allowed to do*,
if his wishes weren't yours, too...

Uh huh.

I may not be all women, but I am A woman, ergo,
not ALL women unilaterlally decide whether or not to bear children.

Non sequitur. Only illiterate fools ASSume that a set, such as
" women ", MUST mean " ALL women ".

Thats your bad, toots. No soup for you.

I could say that men like you are just misogynists

Misogynist (n.): A Man who is WINNING an argument with a Feminist.

Misogynist (n): A man who HATES women.

Error. When Festering Femmeroids start slinging " misogynist ! ", its
clear that they *can't debate the issue*...

who can't stand it that women have choices at all,

No, who can't stand the *bleating lies and hypocrisy of those who
have ALL of the post-coital choices*, and who CAN'T be as responsible,
IE, 100%, as they have *choices*...

What hypocrisy? What lies? Show me ONE PLACE where I have lied.

You claimed to have let your guy make a choice, but its clear that, had
he not chosen *exactly what you wanted*, that *what you wanted was what
was gonna happen*....

but that would be just as worng (and,
incidentally, that is NOT what I think).

Ah. So, you routinely type LIES about what you think.

Got it.

How is that typing lies about what I think? I don't hate you... I don't
think you're a misogynist.

LOL ! Thats a lie. Didn't you write, above: " Misogynist " ?

Whom did you mean that at ? Myself, or yourself ? Theres only the pair
of us on this part of the thread. Are you saying *you're* the referred
to " misogynist " ?

laughs

I don't know you. I am merely having a friendly
debate. Sure it's a little heated, but the topic is a "hot" one.

Indeed.

Stick to the individual topics you
are responding to and away from the sweeping generalizations and see
what
happens, I bet more people will listen to what you have to say instead
of getting all defensive, as I just did.

" You're right... just not in the right way. "

Well, toots, *men* will speak as we will, and if you *can't deal with
that.... tough* !

I know plenty of MEN who do NOT speak in the way you do.

So ? That doesn't make me any less... *real*.

You appear to have a very confrontational attitude

Translation: " You don't give way, to your superior, me, a woman. "

Yep, guilty as charged, and damned proud of it. Deal with it.

and an abrasive personality,

handwaving CAN'T deal with the issues, so again, you aim for
personalities.

Thanks for showing the bankruptcy of your position... laughs

but that is certainly
not limited to your gender. I know plenty of men who aren't, and
women who are, so...

Translation: " This was empty meaningless twaddle, as I wasn't
able to actually say anything to the topic. "

Got it.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...

Again, I agree.

Yet, its WOMEN'S groups *fighting* any choices for men...

What lobby groups have you joined, in an effort to *live your
claim* ?

Uh huh...

Hey, I don't belong to those "groups" and I don't think like them.

*That* remains to be seen...

People,
as a whole, are sheep, and women are no more immune to being so than men.
In fact, I might even say women are MORE prone to being sheep because of
their emotionality and in some cases, irrationality. I am a member of the
Libertarian Party, whose aim it is to see government get out of people's
lives. That would make the playing field more level, would it not?

Depends. Lets see the specifics. And, there are variations of
libertarianism, too.

Men *should* be allowed to give up their rights if they so
choose, just as women are. I think that any man or woman who has sex
(protected or otherwise, because no BC is 100% effective except
abstinence)
is taking a risk, if the woman turns up pregnant, they should mutually
decide what course of action to take, if they cannot agree the parent
who
wants the child to live should supercede, whether it's the man or the
woman.

No problem ! Let her *also pay for her choices and their consequences*,
in PRECISELY the same ratio as she had available the choice.

IOW, 100% to *both*...

Let them BOTH pay for the consequences of their actions...

No problem. Lets apply simple contract law to this.

A couple has sex. She gets preggers. Before she can make any contractual
claim, she must first, as has to any court claimant, *mitigate her
damages*. So, the onus is on her to minimise her needed claimed amount.

Down to one abortion, 50/50 paid for. Thus, the guy's base liability
is, 50% of the cost of an abortion. If SHE ALONE chooses NOT to
mitigate her damages, thats her CHOICE, and so are her *consequences*.

No charge for this law lesson.

She: nine months
of misery and then labor and delivery. He: half of all medical costs
incurred by pregnancy and labor and delivery.

Who CHOSE to bear the child ? Yep... HER.

So, you're wrong. No surprise.

At the end of which time, if
they both want the baby, let them work it out in some equitable fashion, if
one wants the child, the other parent terminates.

Note that, nowhere in your screed, did you find it necessary for the
man to AGREE to the pregnancy, before you charged off half of it's
costs to him*...

How... Feminist of you. So, you ARE a Feminist. Good that we've worked
that fact about you out.

" Women choose... men PAY ".

If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, he should be allowed
to have sole custody with no child support from the woman.

That would be... equal rights.

So, why does every major women's group OPPOSE this ?

Uh huh...

I don't know and I don't really care.

Thanks for showing how small your world is.

That is NOT the point.

Wrong.

*I* am not
"every major women's group" nor am I even a member of ANY women's group.

You're not opposing them. Thus, you're with them. There isn't a third
choice...

THAT is my point about generalizations. You can't stop to discuss the
point, the issue, you have to move on to generalizing about the viewpoints
of people who aren't even part of the discussion!

But, they're what made the topic be what it is, by their lobbying for
the man hating unjust laws...

Look up " context " sometime...

She chose to take the risk,
if she gets saddled with nine months of misery having to carry and
birth the child, well, she should have thought of that before she had
sex.

Still haven't heard of abortion, RU-486, et al...

Got it.

Again, beside the point.

No, you just want to *handwave all that choice for WOMEN, ONLY away*,
because acknowledging it makes hash of your claim.

Got it.

IF things went according to both people having
equal rights to the child, and the FATHER WANTED THE CHILD AND THE MOTHER
WANTED AN ABORTION, her "punishment" for not thinking about the consequences
(or for ignoring them) before hand would be her nine months of misery.

" ... If women's work is so much drudgery, men are wondering, why are
women clinging to it so tenaciously ?... Maybe its because what they've
been playing down all these years is really something quite wonderful
indeed ! " Jack Kammer, " Male Bashing, Why Now ? ", 1994.

IF
MEN HAD EQUAL RIGHTS AND THE FATHER WANTED THE BABY SHE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
USE ANY OF THOSE METHODS OF DISPOSING OF THE CHILD BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE
RIGHTS TO THE CHILD AND COULD SUE HER IF SHE ABORTED, and I think, she
should get jail time as well, in that instance. Once she is pregnant, it
is no longer solely her decision to make. Period. THAT IS MY OPINION,
I KNOW THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS.

And, you do NOTHING at all to get your " opinion " out there, to lobby
for it, to let NOW know that they don't speak for you...

*That* silence speaks volumes...

As does your silence about *how* your view would be enacted, legally.

Similarly, if the woman wants the child, she should be allowed sole
custody
with no support from the man after the birth of the child. The only
reason
he should be partially financially responsible during the pregnancy is
because there has to be some kind of consequence,

Ah ! Here we go, the bleat of the Festering Femmeroid, claiming that
*men must pay women for sex* !

How does your Junior Anti-Sex League sash fit on you ?

That Junior Anti-Sex League joke almost made me pee my pants I laughed so
hard!

I'm glad you find your own views so funny. I sure do.

Anyway... It's not about men paying women for sex.... It's about
equal rights, remember...

Fine. Let HER pay HIM for the sex, then...

Funny that that " equal " position *never* came up...

If a men has equal rights to a fetus, he wants it and
she wants to abort it, she still has to pay the consequences, by putting
up with nine miserable months.

You're really fixated on making it appear that " pregnancy=misery "
for women. That is made a hash of, by the millions of women who
report that they LOVE being pregnant.

So, *who's* making claims about " all women ", now, again ?

laughs

So, by the whole "equal" thing, if the woman wants
the child and the man doesn't, he should have to pay some consequences
also, his consequences (since he can't carry a baby) are financial. See,
it's not that hard to understand, is it?

Su Men pay for women.

So, when men do things for women that demand male powers, where are
you, in asking women to PAY MEN for that ?

Got it. Its a one way deal for you: Men pay, women get paid.

Kinda like... *hooking*. Got it.

otherwise men would just
go around impregnating women and leaving them if they didn't want the
babies.

Oh ? You see women as *non-sentient* creatures, *unable* to detect
a man in the process of " impregnating her " ?

laughs

No, what I *MEANT* was that if men had no responsibility at all, no equal
consequences in creating a child, then they could go around having sex and
not worrying about the ramifications therein. I'm just trying out a theory
in which everything is equitable, both the choices and the consequences.

IOW, you're trying to *lower* men to women's positions.

But, toots, heres a Free Clue: Men CAN'T get pregnant. We don't want to.

Deal with it.

Where are you, in trying to make " everything more equitable ", when it
coes to, say, prostate cancer ? You want women to pay men for that ?

Suuurre....

He chose to take the risk, if he gets saddled with that nine month
burden, well, he should have thought about that before he had sex.

So, *men should be responsible for women, since women CAN'T be
responsible for themselves*...

You really have a *low opinion* of... women...

You have an amazing interpretation of things.

Yep. Its called *reason*. Try it sometime.

EITHER gender chooses to take the
risk EVERY TIME THEY HAVE SEX, if either of them gets saddled with nine
months (or 18 years for that matter) of a burden they didn't want, well, I
guess they should have 1) chosen their partner more carefully, 2) thought
about the consequences before they did the deed.

No problem. *Men don't get pregnant*. Take it up with God.

Next !

Either
gender should be able to not be responsible for a child they don't want.

So, unless a woman can *show proof* of pre-cital acceptance of the
status of father from the guy, she then has zero claim ?

Good.

EXCEPT during the first nine months (the pregnancy). That is the
"punnishment" for men OR women.

Men don't get pregnant. What part of that are you not grasping ?

But, thanks for showing, again, that you want to lower men to the
position of women...

After the baby is born, unless he THEN chooses
to be a part of the child's life, he's off the hook. Similar with a
woman who doesn't want the child.

So, what do you do about women who love being pregnant ( See " A
pregnant woman's glow " ) ? Are you going to compensate men for that ?

laughs Of course not. Your whole rickety house of sexist cards is
utterly dependant on the insane idea that pregnancy=Hell.

ROTFLMAO ! Well, for any woman for whom that might be true...

GET YOURSELF STERILISED. Then, you won't ever have that Hellish
prospect facing you ! Be *responsible* for your own Hells !

However, there should be some way for women and men who agree, but then
one changes their mind later, for one not to be solely responsible
for a child they might not have had if they'd known it was going to
be them on their own.

Translation: " When women change their minds, men should still pay
them "...

Women as whelping whores. Interesting view of women *you show*,
there...

No, I said when EITHER partner changes their mind after the fact, they
should not be able to let go any reasposibility they've already accepted.

So, show men men's certificates proving this " acceptance "...

Uh huh. Got it. Riiiigghhhhtttt ( Dr. Evil voice ).

If the woman and man say they'll raise the child together, neither of them
should be able to just walk away later.

No problem. Theres a *simple and time tested method to memorialise
this committment*:

GET MARRIED ! What part of that are you too dim to grasp ?

Not just women. WHY do you keep reading
everything I write as "men should pay women for sex" and "when women
change their minds, men should still pay them"?

Because *thats what everything you say comes down to*...

Has a women screwed you over in this way?

Really, toots, don't try to play Femi-Shrink with me. You're
*spectacularly* unqualified...

Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

Of course it does, because thats your feminised *dishonesty* acting
up, *so that you can hand wave away my points*.

Thanks for proving that women DON'T LISTEN, they just make up their
own cow**** as they go along...

You are so bitter.

Ah ! The siren call of the Festering Femmeroid. GOD FORBID that a *man*
ever disagree strongly with a *woman*. He MUST be " bitter ". It CAN'T
be that he could actulaly be...

RIGHT !

You ARE a Feminist. In *every* way.

My ex husband bandied about terminating his parental rights so he
would have to pay child support.

I presume you mean " *wouldn't* habe to pay... "...

Luckily, in the state we're in he couldn't
unless I agreed, and I wouldn't have.

Translation: " All power to *choose to the woman*... "

Got it.

I mean it, he made a commitment to have a child with me and help me raise
it,

Really ? You married him ? FIRST ?

why shoudl he be able to just walk away from that because he doesn't
want the responsibility anymore?

Why not ? We allow milllions of *women* to do that.

Aren't you in favour of " equality "... ?

Though I didn't sign up to be a single
parent to our daughter, HE wanted to marry ME, I was ready to be a
single
parent at that time, but once we'd agreed to be a unit in raising our
child, I wasn't about to let him back out of the agreement and leave me
in
the lurch, either.

IOW, he's *your insurance policy, and his own*.

So, when push came to shove, you never *had to stand on your own*.
Only *he did*...

Got it.

Oh, I stood on my own for a good eight months before our divorce became
final because he "couldn't afford" to give me any money.

Oh wow. EIGHT MONTHS. You poor, poor dear. How could such a beast have
made you *be responsible for yourself for even ten minutes* ?

sarcasm mode off

And you know what?

Other than that you go on and ON about it...

It didn't matter that much to me. I had my daughter, I had a job (albeit
min wage), I was doing okay. But I won't lie, having his money did
eventually make things easier, though it's not like we are living high on
the hog or anything, and I don't think we shoudl be. I myself know a woman
who is gouging her ex boyfriend for over $1000/month and spending it on
herself, a new car, a new house, a husband who doesn't work... It's
sickening.

And, what does that tell you about the system... ?

Careful now, you might have to think about something bigger than just
your own widdle life... Or, even making up about mine...

The money we get from my ex is carefully put away for my
daughter's college and when she needs clothes or anything, we take some of
the money from there. We figure, if we're paying for all food and all
shelter costs 300 days of the year (and that's generous, we split in 2001
and he has yet to take her for more than 50 days out of the year), that
money can buy her some clothes.

OK.

There's got to be some compromise where both genders have
equal rights when it comes to kids.

Not in *your life*, though...

Sure, my life too, show me where I don't agree with that.

Sure. You made a baby, before getting married. You wanted to baby
NOW, and couldn't be bothered to get it's family all set up, and
*working, first*.

Done. Next !

And don't go back to the bit about him wanting to back out of
our previous agreement to raise our child jointly.

Like in a pre-existing committed family ? Well, *you* never let that
be possible...

We had an agreement in place to raise our child jointly, he didn't
hold up his end of the bargain, so I left. Then he wanted out of
the bargain all together? Nope, I don't think so. Equal rights for the
parents does NOT mean the child gets screwed because one parent who
previously agreed to help raise it suddently changes their mind.

Yet, *you chose* to make a baby ( Remember, all he *helped you make
was a zygote ) BEFORE ascertaining his fatherhood potential, like,
by marrying him, first, and *seeing for yourself* how that went.

This is just one reason why the rush of clock-ticking wimmins to make
babies, uber alles, is, well, pathological and INSANE...

Because, that leads them to ASSume and not *find out first*...

BTW, dating *isn't* " finding out ". Duh !

I'm sure all the raging feminazis are going to get me over
that one, but what the heck, I have a thick skin, I can take it.

LOL ! Imagine, a widdle supported woman, claiming to have to
stand up to feminazis.

Explain again how I'm a "supported woman"?

See below.

And how exatly do you know this anyway?

By *what you wrote* ? Am I the only one of us who paud attention
to what you wrote ? Could be...

You know me? Do you know if I'm supported or supporter? No.

Yes. You yourself, spoke of the money coming to you.

Thats *support*, toots. Get a dictionary. Now, use it for something
*other* than a couch leveler...

Sheesh. Talk about toxic, self decieving women. I gotta save this
post, my S/O will get a laugh from *you*.

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Krista" ) top-posted *away* from the points
I raised, as she *couldn't* deal with them:

Way to twist every single sentence I wrote so it means what YOU want and
not what *I* wrote...

yawn *Empty* Festering Femmeroid top-posting ASSertions.

Way to *prove* your claims...

Oh, wait a sec... you *failed* to even try to do that...

Thanks for making my point for me, once again.

You absolutely just proved my point there, genius.

projection

STEP AWAY FROM THE GENERALIZATIONS and you will see that I FREAKING
AGREE WITH YOU!

No, you don't. You just want to *look like you do*.

Let me spell it out for you in the simplest terms possible, so I can
watch you twist my words again so you can go on believe in your little
fantasy world that all women want to keep men's input out of the
childbearing decisions...

LOL ! Way to ASSume more *wrongly*...

Let me make this real clear, in small words, so that even WomenFirsters
like you can grasp it:

I have NO problem with a woman choosing to give birth- *As long as
any and all of the presumed responsibility for HER SOLE CHOICE is
measured out the same way*. UNLESS she got the *express and explicit,
*post-coital* consent of the guy. Thats called, marriage.

What happened, did some woman have an abortion when you wanted the kid?

Nope. Wrong again, oh *personalising projector*.

But, thanks for showing me that you, also, CANNOT debate/refute
*the topic*, so that you HAVE TO move to *personalities*.

But, in sinking that low, you improved your error rate... not a bit.
You're still 100% WRONG.

laughs

That happened to my husband and you know what??

I absolutely *don't care*.

HE GOT OVER IT. Sure, he still thinks about that child, just as I think
about the daughter my ex-boyfriend and I relinquished for adoption, but he
doesn't think all women are evil like you seem to.

" seem to " being your *deliberately obtuse operative words*...

MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL SAY IN WHETHER OR NOT A CHILD (THAT HAS
BOTH OF THEIR DNA) IS BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD.

I'll even run ahead of you. While single women whelping sprogs is absolute
*anuse of the children*, deliberately depriving them of the most important
parent, the father, I wouldn't make it illegal, or any such.

I'd merely not *reward* it a sou, or a farthing, either.
Given the shrill cries of da wimmins for their due " child support ",
that alone ought to be plenty of deterrent.

IN THE EVENT THEY CANNOT AGREE, THE PROSPECTIVE LIFE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
MATURE AND THE PARENT WHO WANTS IT SHOULD TAKE IT AND RAISE IT.

So, if she wants an abortion, and he doesn't, his wish gets precedence ?
How you gonna legally enforce that, when modern wimmin's groups shrilly
demand that woman do whatever they want, and men pay for it all... ?

There, is that clear enough for you, or do I need to be monosyllabic?

No, just reality based.

Yes, I'm getting a little rude, I'm a little ****ed that you have turned
everything I said into something completely opposite of what I meant.

LOL ! Translation: " I'm ****ed that you saw so easily through my
cow****. "

Got it.

All
right, I will explicate my points in detail, each and every one in turn...

This should be a laugh...

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Krista" ) writes:
Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.

I agree that *is* wrong.

Now, lets watch you *equivicate away* from that initial point...

I think men should have some say, after all, they
*are* just as responsible for the child being there, as is the woman.

WRONG. NO man can *make* a woman carry to term, if *she doesn't want
to*, and NO man can make a woman NOT carry to term, *if she doesn't
want to*.

I SAID, I *think* men *should* have as much say, I know they don't.
I think that's wrong.

So, whats your *legal mechanism* to make your " plan " work ?

The devil is in the details...

But, thanks for showing us that, when it comes to *women*, you
want to have it *both ways*...

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Have WHAT both ways?

Choice hers. Money, from him to her...

If she didn't want to have a kid, she should have protected herself
better.

So, you *haven't heard of WOMEN's post-coital choices*....

Like RU-486, abortion, legal and unilateral adopting out, and legal
and unilateral infant abandon laws...

BTW, theres *nothing* about those last two that is limited to
their use by women, only...

Of course I have heard of them, I would have to live under a rock not to.

Many Baby Feminists who infest soc.men tend to deny that woman have any
more choices than do men, IOW, zero, post-coital.

I just don't agree that women should be able to "unilaterally" make those
choices. They made that baby TOGETHER,

Bzt. You just flunked Biology 101.

The man and woman, together, make a *zygote*. Beyond that point, the
man's participation is wholly non-biological, and at present, is no
more and no less than *what she will allow*...

they should decide it's future TOGETHER, if she didn't want to take
that chance she should have abstained from sex!

Does that include *you*, given your comments about your men who fathered
children with you ?

Uh huh...

If he didn't, the same goes for him.

Thanks for showing that you demand that *men be responsible for women's
POST-COITAL choices...

NO ONE is responsible for another person's choices, I was merely pointing
out that if he didn't want to change getting a woman pregnant, he shoud
have protected his DNA better.

Funny how you *failed* to mention that *the woman needed to " protect "
her DNA, too*...

Omissions of that sort are common from the Baby Feminists...

The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

I resent this remark.

Tough ! You're NOT " all women. " Deal with it.

No, I'm not ALL women, *I* never said I was!

Non sequitur. In which case, your " resentment " was typical feminised
emotive meaningless twaddle.

But, thanks for showing that, when a debate on a topic is in hand,
you *cannot* stick with it, and you just *have to* emote out.

How... grade one.

I said YOU can't generalize about women because YOU DON'T KNOW!

laughs Indeed I *do*, chykkie. *Thats* what has your panties in
a bunch.

The social data is well and truely IN, and it all shows quite
conclusively that the single mommie and " no fault " divorce
" revolutions " have been a failure greater than that of, say,
Communism. It figures, as both were movements based not on facts
or reality, but bogus *ideology*.

Go look up " Lysenko-ism " sometime...

You can't possibly know what motivates women as a whole.

Ibid.

Not all women are greedy, not all women unilaterlly decided anything
about their children, even I, being a woman, can't say what motivates
other women, sure, some are motivated by greed, just like some men
and women use their children as pawns against the other parent, but that
doesn't mean all, or even most do that.

Non sequitur. Go look up the date on " pushed out fathers ". Add in
" paternity *fraud*. " Just those two alone, speak to MILLIONS of
lying, deceitful, and totally without honour women.

And, more in wimmin's lobby groups, demanding that women *not be
held accountable* for their actions...

See NOW, NARAL, et al...

Your generalizations don't hold up.

yawn Empty, and *clueless* assertion.

Case dis-MSed.

I *DID NOT EVER* unilaterally decide to have ANY of my children.

Really ? What *right of veto* did they have *over your decision
making process* ?

... Exactly.

We each had equal "right of veto" over each others decision making
processes.

And, had you disagreed with them, their power to *make that veto*
stick would have been... ?

Exactly. You were as stuck *as you wanted to be*. Period.

They were all discussed with their prospective fathers, and in
the middle one's case, I even offered him the option of not being
responsible for her.

Which, *under the law*, would hold up only *as long as you wanted it
to*...

No, actually, if he'd terminated his rights,

Note that you failed to mention this, above...

and I'd okayed it in the first
place (which I agree is f'd up that women have the right to veto the
termination of men's parental rights, but I understand the converse also,
and the reason that "rule" is in place), I couldn't later revoke that just
because I felt like it, got ****ed, decided I wanted the money, etc. Once
the decision is made, it's final. At least where I live.

On a revocation, indeed. But, as I said, you *failed* to mention that
that step was a prospect, and, as we can note, it didn't come to pass...

HE wanted to get married, and then HE abused me until
I couldn't take it anymore and left when our daughter was 9 months old.

shrug *You* chose him....

Which is SO not the point...

Wrong. You chose him, you chose to bear the child...

The common theme is... *you got to choose*...

Because of who he is and how he is, even though I offered him reduced
child support, etc. he chose to pay the full amount, but in the
meantime,
instead of being honest with me, he lies to me about getting raises and
then whines about how he never gets to see his daughter because his car
is in bad shape, he can't afford to fix it, etc, etc, etc.

Boo hoo. You chose him. And, thanks for showing us all that, your claim
of lower payments notwithstanding, when the stuff hit the fan, *your
main issue* is *his delivery of money to YOU*...

Thanks for making my point for me...

Huh? How exactly do you get that from what I said? When what stuff hit
what fan??? His car breaking down? You're not making any sense.

Read on...

HE CHOSE to pay the full amount. HE CHOSE not to terminate his rights, NOT
ME.

Non sequitur. You could have had the hospital write " father: unknown "
on the birth certificate, and that act alone, would have *prevented
him from having any rights/responsibilities* wrt said child.

That action, too, was wholly within your total power.

I don't care if he gets raises up the wazoo, he can have them, I don't
care to have my child support raised, it DOES NOT MATTER TO ME. I was
saying that he could at least BE HONEST with me about them,

Who cares ? You're trying to tell him *how he should act* on a matter
you *claim* is of no interest to you.

People who display real disinterest to a topic, simply... don't care.

instead of
trying to GUILT TRIP ME INTO FEELING BAD THAT HE HAS TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT.

No one can take you on a guilt trip that you don't chose to go on...

Be responsible for... yourself.

My current husband and I live on $20,000/year raising two children
(ages 3.5 and 22 months) and he can't even support himself, alone,

Why *should he* ? Can *you* ? Without the loot flowing from your
guy #1 ?

Uh huh...

Why shouldn't a 26 year old single male be able to live on $20,000/year?

What *business* is it of *yours* ?

Busy body.

I damn sure could, I'm making it on that little with a family, I could
if I was single too!

See ? You do so " care ". Pathologically so.

That $20,000/year INCLUDES the "loot" flowing from my ex,
thankyouverymuch.

You mean your $20,000. Not his $20,000.

on over $15,000 MORE than that without having to
whine about "poor, poor" him?

Well, you chose them both...

Get over yourself,

yawn More pathological " caring " from you.

I have no need to " get over muyself ". I have taken personal
responsibility for the choices in my life that I have actually made.

Try matching my credentials, ace.

yes, I chose them both, and the second one is FAR, FAR
superior to the first. You are again missing my point, but I shoudl be
expecting that by now.

How... Feminist of you. *Can't* make a point without personalising it...

My ex (the 26 year old single male) BRINGS HOME (after
taxes, child support taken out, etc.) $35,000/year. My husband and I
and two kids BRING HOME (after taxes, including child support and student
loans, etc.) $20,000/year. And he (my ex) can't fix his car, or see his
daughter more often than once a month because he can't "afford it"? That
doesn't fly, sorry.

Free Clue: You can control *your lifestyle*.

You CAN'T control *anyone else's*...

Once you realise that, and take it to your heart, you will twist
and turn in helpless female frustration, less...

And those figures are AFTER taxes, AND his figure
is AFTER the money he does pay me in CS. That is net income for both
families.

Gee. You've just discovered that *two households can't live as well as
one, on the same money*.

Your Nobel Prize For Economics is in the mail...

What two households? There is no two households...

Sigh: You and present husband: Household #1. Your ex: Household *#2*.

Duh !

My husband and I and
two kids live on less money per year than my single ex husband, how is that
two households living less well than one on the same money?

Who knows ? Who *cares* ? Are you still so *invested in your ex's DAY
to DAY LIFE* that you cannot let go of trying to, futilely, " control "
said day to day life ?

Amazing. Pathological, but amazing...

If THAT were the
case, we'd all be living on $55,000/year split between us instead of the
way it is now... But again, you're not making sense.

I understand that your control freak pathologies are getting in your
way. Calm down, take a Midol...

And some of our income is even in the form of student loans,
which we eventually have to pay back, so though it's income right now,
it
will be outflow later. I *COULD* take him to court and get his child
support increased. I thought about doing it for no other reason than I
was ****ed that he couldn't be honest with me, but I chose not to.

But, *you could have*... YOU had that *power to decide his fate*.

When did he *ever* have a similar power to decide *your fate* ?

Uh huh...

When you have custody. I know plenty of men who get custody of their kids.

Its still a 1/9 ratio. See www.now.org, to see how wrong NOW ( You
know, the main US wimmin's group ) sees that increase for fathers...

Oh, learn this phrase: " The plural of anecdote is NOT citation. "

Where I live, not so much, but in many other places there are a HUGE number

1/9 isn't " huge " Take remedial math 101. English, too.

of men being awarded custody, if for no other reason than in a backlash for
all the years women have been seen as the "more suitable home" for children
just because we have a vagina. Sure, I had that power,

Thats my *point*. Thank you for *conceeding it*, finally.

just like he has the power to try

ROTFLMAO !

So, you call " equal " *your power to dictate*, and *his " power "
to... TRY*...

laughs

and win custody from me and have me pay child support.

Statistically, women pay CS at lower rates than do men, and default
far more frequently...

IF he saw
her more often I would probably consider lowering his CS, or if he
stopped
seeing her altogether, but he has done neither, he continues to see her
about once a month, when it's convenient for him.

shrug *You chose him*... Did you find out, *before you chose to bear
a child*, what his potential was to be a father, if HE were to choose
that status ?

Uh huh...

I didn't choose to bear a child WE chose to bear a child.

Sophistry. As *already shown* his " choice " had exactly NO standing,
or power to be enforced with.

Only YOURS had those things...

I didn't even
choose to get pregnant, I was on birth control, and taking it regularly.

Nonsense. You chose to commit the act that leads to pregnancy. Any
sentient woman *must* acknowledge that *possibility*, and deal with
it.

Take Biology 101 for more data on this fact of human nature.

He told me he wanted to get married and have children.

And, *sticking to that order of things* didn't come to your mind ?
Amazing.

The next month I was pregnant (without going off BC).

So ? You, and *you alone* had a plethora of choices by which said
pregnancy had NO power to override your wishes...

Its churlish to complain about *what you distinctly chose*...

In a totally unrelated topic, later in our
relationship, when I was thinking about leaving him, he tried the get me
pregnant so i wouldn't be able to leave him,

ROTFLMAO ! So, again, YOU forgot about abortion, RU-486, et al.

How is his " getting you pregnant " going to result in your *having
a BABY*, if you *simply choose for it not to go that far ?

For that matter, lets say you do have the baby. Whats stopping you
from listing " father: unknown ", whats stopping you from adopting
it out, without a word to him, and whats stopping you from dropping
it off at a hospital, as per legal abandon laws ?

NOTHING ! So, stop bleating about things over which YOU had total
control. Sheesh.

I sometimes wonder if *he*
didn't make the choice to get pregnant, and then tamper with my BC pills...

Gee, like so many women do...

Equality. You hate it. laughs

As I said, totally irrelevant, and you'll probably find a way to twist that
against me, too. Still, HE CHOSE TO MARRY ME,

No, you *chose to marry EACH OTHER*.

You have a major personal issue with your *passive-agression*.

I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T WANT TO
GET MARRIED, HE WANTED TO, HE WAS VERY UPSET THAT I WANTED TO WAIT,
HE CHOSE THE RESPONSIBILITY,

What, he bashed you over the head with a club, and dragged you by the
hair to the Justice of the Peace, such that you have NO say over your
getting married, and to him ?

Amazing passive-agression on your part. How... *irresponsible*.

and then he shirked it, and abused me. However, he was still
the one who wanted to get pregnant, NOT ME, I was just the incubator.

Yep. Very passive-agressive on your part.

Be an *adult woman*. Be *responsible for what you wrought.

But then he found out how "hard" it is having a baby and he didn't want the
responsibility anymore... He wanted to be able to go out with his friends
and get a beer, on a moment's notice, he didn't want to worry about diapers
and baby drool, he wanted me to be the "good little wifey" barefoot, baby on
the hip, in the kichten, and silent unless spoken to. Sure, I'll admit, I
didn't know how he REALLY felt about women and children (that they were his
"property") until after we were married and had one on the way,

Thanks for showing that you *failed your responsibility to yourself* to
find out such things, before you let him drag you to the JoP...

but that is
because he told me what he thought I wanted to hear (his own words), and I
had nothing else to go on but what he told me.

Passive agressive COW**** ! Of course, you had plenty of ways to find
such things out. Simple observation, for one. Paying attention.

He said he wanted the same
things I did, and I believed him... Naive? Sure, but I didn't make that
mistake the second time.

Good. A pity you failed to learn your most important lesson from
your first time.

Its good that neither I nor my SO made that failure from our earlier
lives.

Even though he is supposed
to take her for all of Spring Break week and 42 days in the summer,
he has not and will not.

Ibid.

It's too difficult for him, he would have to
provide daycare and stuff, you know. Much easier to just leave her with
us
until he feels like having her visit and then asking us to put our plans
on
hold while he takes her for the weekend. Not to mention he shares a
room
with her and she's seen and heard him and his various girlfriends having
sex. But that's a whole other story. I should NEVER hear my three and
a
half year old daughter saying things like "Ooh, baby, come for me." and
"Shh, quiet, you'll wake the baby." while I'm drving her home from her
father's house.

Ibid.

Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is completely
getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just won't bear up.

LOL ! Yeah, they so " won't hold up " that you were UNABVLE even to TRY
to refute them...

laughs Go back to Baby Feminist school...

I am NOT a feminist.

Sure.....

Talk to my husband's ex wife and then tell ME I'm a feminist?
HA! You generalized that all women unilaterally decide to "whelp
kids" and I refuted that.

Nope. You didn't. You *claimed* it, but, as we see, the legal and societal
POWER to enforce any and all decisions on that, were yours, and *yours
alone*.

Feel free to SHOW what your guy would have been *legally allowed to do*,
if his wishes weren't yours, too...

Uh huh.

I may not be all women, but I am A woman, ergo,
not ALL women unilaterlally decide whether or not to bear children.

Non sequitur. Only illiterate fools ASSume that a set, such as
" women ", MUST mean " ALL women ".

Thats your bad, toots. No soup for you.

I could say that men like you are just misogynists

Misogynist (n.): A Man who is WINNING an argument with a Feminist.

Misogynist (n): A man who HATES women.

Error. When Festering Femmeroids start slinging " misogynist ! ", its
clear that they *can't debate the issue*...

who can't stand it that women have choices at all,

No, who can't stand the *bleating lies and hypocrisy of those who
have ALL of the post-coital choices*, and who CAN'T be as responsible,
IE, 100%, as they have *choices*...

What hypocrisy? What lies? Show me ONE PLACE where I have lied.

You claimed to have let your guy make a choice, but its clear that, had
he not chosen *exactly what you wanted*, that *what you wanted was what
was gonna happen*....

but that would be just as worng (and,
incidentally, that is NOT what I think).

Ah. So, you routinely type LIES about what you think.

Got it.

How is that typing lies about what I think? I don't hate you... I don't
think you're a misogynist.

LOL ! Thats a lie. Didn't you write, above: " Misogynist " ?

Whom did you mean that at ? Myself, or yourself ? Theres only the pair
of us on this part of the thread. Are you saying *you're* the referred
to " misogynist " ?

laughs

I don't know you. I am merely having a friendly
debate. Sure it's a little heated, but the topic is a "hot" one.

Indeed.

Stick to the individual topics you
are responding to and away from the sweeping generalizations and see
what
happens, I bet more people will listen to what you have to say instead
of getting all defensive, as I just did.

" You're right... just not in the right way. "

Well, toots, *men* will speak as we will, and if you *can't deal with
that.... tough* !

I know plenty of MEN who do NOT speak in the way you do.

So ? That doesn't make me any less... *real*.

You appear to have a very confrontational attitude

Translation: " You don't give way, to your superior, me, a woman. "

Yep, guilty as charged, and damned proud of it. Deal with it.

and an abrasive personality,

handwaving CAN'T deal with the issues, so again, you aim for
personalities.

Thanks for showing the bankruptcy of your position... laughs

but that is certainly
not limited to your gender. I know plenty of men who aren't, and
women who are, so...

Translation: " This was empty meaningless twaddle, as I wasn't
able to actually say anything to the topic. "

Got it.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...

Again, I agree.

Yet, its WOMEN'S groups *fighting* any choices for men...

What lobby groups have you joined, in an effort to *live your
claim* ?

Uh huh...

Hey, I don't belong to those "groups" and I don't think like them.

*That* remains to be seen...

People,
as a whole, are sheep, and women are no more immune to being so than men.
In fact, I might even say women are MORE prone to being sheep because of
their emotionality and in some cases, irrationality. I am a member of the
Libertarian Party, whose aim it is to see government get out of people's
lives. That would make the playing field more level, would it not?

Depends. Lets see the specifics. And, there are variations of
libertarianism, too.

Men *should* be allowed to give up their rights if they so
choose, just as women are. I think that any man or woman who has sex
(protected or otherwise, because no BC is 100% effective except
abstinence)
is taking a risk, if the woman turns up pregnant, they should mutually
decide what course of action to take, if they cannot agree the parent
who
wants the child to live should supercede, whether it's the man or the
woman.

No problem ! Let her *also pay for her choices and their consequences*,
in PRECISELY the same ratio as she had available the choice.

IOW, 100% to *both*...

Let them BOTH pay for the consequences of their actions...

No problem. Lets apply simple contract law to this.

A couple has sex. She gets preggers. Before she can make any contractual
claim, she must first, as has to any court claimant, *mitigate her
damages*. So, the onus is on her to minimise her needed claimed amount.

Down to one abortion, 50/50 paid for. Thus, the guy's base liability
is, 50% of the cost of an abortion. If SHE ALONE chooses NOT to
mitigate her damages, thats her CHOICE, and so are her *consequences*.

No charge for this law lesson.

She: nine months
of misery and then labor and delivery. He: half of all medical costs
incurred by pregnancy and labor and delivery.

Who CHOSE to bear the child ? Yep... HER.

So, you're wrong. No surprise.

At the end of which time, if
they both want the baby, let them work it out in some equitable fashion, if
one wants the child, the other parent terminates.

Note that, nowhere in your screed, did you find it necessary for the
man to AGREE to the pregnancy, before you charged off half of it's
costs to him*...

How... Feminist of you. So, you ARE a Feminist. Good that we've worked
that fact about you out.

" Women choose... men PAY ".

If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, he should be allowed
to have sole custody with no child support from the woman.

That would be... equal rights.

So, why does every major women's group OPPOSE this ?

Uh huh...

I don't know and I don't really care.

Thanks for showing how small your world is.

That is NOT the point.

Wrong.

*I* am not
"every major women's group" nor am I even a member of ANY women's group.

You're not opposing them. Thus, you're with them. There isn't a third
choice...

THAT is my point about generalizations. You can't stop to discuss the
point, the issue, you have to move on to generalizing about the viewpoints
of people who aren't even part of the discussion!

But, they're what made the topic be what it is, by their lobbying for
the man hating unjust laws...

Look up " context " sometime...

She chose to take the risk,
if she gets saddled with nine months of misery having to carry and
birth the child, well, she should have thought of that before she had
sex.

Still haven't heard of abortion, RU-486, et al...

Got it.

Again, beside the point.

No, you just want to *handwave all that choice for WOMEN, ONLY away*,
because acknowledging it makes hash of your claim.

Got it.

IF things went according to both people having
equal rights to the child, and the FATHER WANTED THE CHILD AND THE MOTHER
WANTED AN ABORTION, her "punishment" for not thinking about the consequences
(or for ignoring them) before hand would be her nine months of misery.

" ... If women's work is so much drudgery, men are wondering, why are
women clinging to it so tenaciously ?... Maybe its because what they've
been playing down all these years is really something quite wonderful
indeed ! " Jack Kammer, " Male Bashing, Why Now ? ", 1994.

IF
MEN HAD EQUAL RIGHTS AND THE FATHER WANTED THE BABY SHE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
USE ANY OF THOSE METHODS OF DISPOSING OF THE CHILD BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE
RIGHTS TO THE CHILD AND COULD SUE HER IF SHE ABORTED, and I think, she
should get jail time as well, in that instance. Once she is pregnant, it
is no longer solely her decision to make. Period. THAT IS MY OPINION,
I KNOW THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS.

And, you do NOTHING at all to get your " opinion " out there, to lobby
for it, to let NOW know that they don't speak for you...

*That* silence speaks volumes...

As does your silence about *how* your view would be enacted, legally.

Similarly, if the woman wants the child, she should be allowed sole
custody
with no support from the man after the birth of the child. The only
reason
he should be partially financially responsible during the pregnancy is
because there has to be some kind of consequence,

Ah ! Here we go, the bleat of the Festering Femmeroid, claiming that
*men must pay women for sex* !

How does your Junior Anti-Sex League sash fit on you ?

That Junior Anti-Sex League joke almost made me pee my pants I laughed so
hard!

I'm glad you find your own views so funny. I sure do.

Anyway... It's not about men paying women for sex.... It's about
equal rights, remember...

Fine. Let HER pay HIM for the sex, then...

Funny that that " equal " position *never* came up...

If a men has equal rights to a fetus, he wants it and
she wants to abort it, she still has to pay the consequences, by putting
up with nine miserable months.

You're really fixated on making it appear that " pregnancy=misery "
for women. That is made a hash of, by the millions of women who
report that they LOVE being pregnant.

So, *who's* making claims about " all women ", now, again ?

laughs

So, by the whole "equal" thing, if the woman wants
the child and the man doesn't, he should have to pay some consequences
also, his consequences (since he can't carry a baby) are financial. See,
it's not that hard to understand, is it?

Su Men pay for women.

So, when men do things for women that demand male powers, where are
you, in asking women to PAY MEN for that ?

Got it. Its a one way deal for you: Men pay, women get paid.

Kinda like... *hooking*. Got it.

otherwise men would just
go around impregnating women and leaving them if they didn't want the
babies.

Oh ? You see women as *non-sentient* creatures, *unable* to detect
a man in the process of " impregnating her " ?

laughs

No, what I *MEANT* was that if men had no responsibility at all, no equal
consequences in creating a child, then they could go around having sex and
not worrying about the ramifications therein. I'm just trying out a theory
in which everything is equitable, both the choices and the consequences.

IOW, you're trying to *lower* men to women's positions.

But, toots, heres a Free Clue: Men CAN'T get pregnant. We don't want to.

Deal with it.

Where are you, in trying to make " everything more equitable ", when it
coes to, say, prostate cancer ? You want women to pay men for that ?

Suuurre....

He chose to take the risk, if he gets saddled with that nine month
burden, well, he should have thought about that before he had sex.

So, *men should be responsible for women, since women CAN'T be
responsible for themselves*...

You really have a *low opinion* of... women...

You have an amazing interpretation of things.

Yep. Its called *reason*. Try it sometime.

EITHER gender chooses to take the
risk EVERY TIME THEY HAVE SEX, if either of them gets saddled with nine
months (or 18 years for that matter) of a burden they didn't want, well, I
guess they should have 1) chosen their partner more carefully, 2) thought
about the consequences before they did the deed.

No problem. *Men don't get pregnant*. Take it up with God.

Next !

Either
gender should be able to not be responsible for a child they don't want.

So, unless a woman can *show proof* of pre-cital acceptance of the
status of father from the guy, she then has zero claim ?

Good.

EXCEPT during the first nine months (the pregnancy). That is the
"punnishment" for men OR women.

Men don't get pregnant. What part of that are you not grasping ?

But, thanks for showing, again, that you want to lower men to the
position of women...

After the baby is born, unless he THEN chooses
to be a part of the child's life, he's off the hook. Similar with a
woman who doesn't want the child.

So, what do you do about women who love being pregnant ( See " A
pregnant woman's glow " ) ? Are you going to compensate men for that ?

laughs Of course not. Your whole rickety house of sexist cards is
utterly dependant on the insane idea that pregnancy=Hell.

ROTFLMAO ! Well, for any woman for whom that might be true...

GET YOURSELF STERILISED. Then, you won't ever have that Hellish
prospect facing you ! Be *responsible* for your own Hells !

However, there should be some way for women and men who agree, but then
one changes their mind later, for one not to be solely responsible
for a child they might not have had if they'd known it was going to
be them on their own.

Translation: " When women change their minds, men should still pay
them "...

Women as whelping whores. Interesting view of women *you show*,
there...

No, I said when EITHER partner changes their mind after the fact, they
should not be able to let go any reasposibility they've already accepted.

So, show men men's certificates proving this " acceptance "...

Uh huh. Got it. Riiiigghhhhtttt ( Dr. Evil voice ).

If the woman and man say they'll raise the child together, neither of them
should be able to just walk away later.

No problem. Theres a *simple and time tested method to memorialise
this committment*:

GET MARRIED ! What part of that are you too dim to grasp ?

Not just women. WHY do you keep reading
everything I write as "men should pay women for sex" and "when women
change their minds, men should still pay them"?

Because *thats what everything you say comes down to*...

Has a women screwed you over in this way?

Really, toots, don't try to play Femi-Shrink with me. You're
*spectacularly* unqualified...

Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

Of course it does, because thats your feminised *dishonesty* acting
up, *so that you can hand wave away my points*.

Thanks for proving that women DON'T LISTEN, they just make up their
own cow**** as they go along...

You are so bitter.

Ah ! The siren call of the Festering Femmeroid. GOD FORBID that a *man*
ever disagree strongly with a *woman*. He MUST be " bitter ". It CAN'T
be that he could actulaly be...

RIGHT !

You ARE a Feminist. In *every* way.

My ex husband bandied about terminating his parental rights so he
would have to pay child support.

I presume you mean " *wouldn't* habe to pay... "...

Luckily, in the state we're in he couldn't
unless I agreed, and I wouldn't have.

Translation: " All power to *choose to the woman*... "

Got it.

I mean it, he made a commitment to have a child with me and help me raise
it,

Really ? You married him ? FIRST ?

why shoudl he be able to just walk away from that because he doesn't
want the responsibility anymore?

Why not ? We allow milllions of *women* to do that.

Aren't you in favour of " equality "... ?

Though I didn't sign up to be a single
parent to our daughter, HE wanted to marry ME, I was ready to be a
single
parent at that time, but once we'd agreed to be a unit in raising our
child, I wasn't about to let him back out of the agreement and leave me
in
the lurch, either.

IOW, he's *your insurance policy, and his own*.

So, when push came to shove, you never *had to stand on your own*.
Only *he did*...

Got it.

Oh, I stood on my own for a good eight months before our divorce became
final because he "couldn't afford" to give me any money.

Oh wow. EIGHT MONTHS. You poor, poor dear. How could such a beast have
made you *be responsible for yourself for even ten minutes* ?

sarcasm mode off

And you know what?

Other than that you go on and ON about it...

It didn't matter that much to me. I had my daughter, I had a job (albeit
min wage), I was doing okay. But I won't lie, having his money did
eventually make things easier, though it's not like we are living high on
the hog or anything, and I don't think we shoudl be. I myself know a woman
who is gouging her ex boyfriend for over $1000/month and spending it on
herself, a new car, a new house, a husband who doesn't work... It's
sickening.

And, what does that tell you about the system... ?

Careful now, you might have to think about something bigger than just
your own widdle life... Or, even making up about mine...

The money we get from my ex is carefully put away for my
daughter's college and when she needs clothes or anything, we take some of
the money from there. We figure, if we're paying for all food and all
shelter costs 300 days of the year (and that's generous, we split in 2001
and he has yet to take her for more than 50 days out of the year), that
money can buy her some clothes.

OK.

There's got to be some compromise where both genders have
equal rights when it comes to kids.

Not in *your life*, though...

Sure, my life too, show me where I don't agree with that.

Sure. You made a baby, before getting married. You wanted to baby
NOW, and couldn't be bothered to get it's family all set up, and
*working, first*.

Done. Next !

And don't go back to the bit about him wanting to back out of
our previous agreement to raise our child jointly.

Like in a pre-existing committed family ? Well, *you* never let that
be possible...

We had an agreement in place to raise our child jointly, he didn't
hold up his end of the bargain, so I left. Then he wanted out of
the bargain all together? Nope, I don't think so. Equal rights for the
parents does NOT mean the child gets screwed because one parent who
previously agreed to help raise it suddently changes their mind.

Yet, *you chose* to make a baby ( Remember, all he *helped you make
was a zygote ) BEFORE ascertaining his fatherhood potential, like,
by marrying him, first, and *seeing for yourself* how that went.

This is just one reason why the rush of clock-ticking wimmins to make
babies, uber alles, is, well, pathological and INSANE...

Because, that leads them to ASSume and not *find out first*...

BTW, dating *isn't* " finding out ". Duh !

I'm sure all the raging feminazis are going to get me over
that one, but what the heck, I have a thick skin, I can take it.

LOL ! Imagine, a widdle supported woman, claiming to have to
stand up to feminazis.

Explain again how I'm a "supported woman"?

See below.

And how exatly do you know this anyway?

By *what you wrote* ? Am I the only one of us who paud attention
to what you wrote ? Could be...

You know me? Do you know if I'm supported or supporter? No.

Yes. You yourself, spoke of the money coming to you.

Thats *support*, toots. Get a dictionary. Now, use it for something
*other* than a couch leveler...

Sheesh. Talk about toxic, self decieving women. I gotta save this
post, my S/O will get a laugh from *you*.

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
From my perspective, the NCP should pay more that 50% of the cost
associated with the upbringing of the child/children. Why? Because
it takes a hell of a lot more energy than $$$'s to raise the kids.

No problem. If the " energy " is *too much* for you, then hand
over the kids to Dad, and pay *him* 70% of the " costs "...

Again, here we have a wonderful example of a woman who demands that
men *be responsible for her sole choices*...

Kahlooless ...

Yes, you are. As you again prove that you *cannot* refute/debate
the *topic*.

Thank you for continuing to display your deep *inabilities*.

You're still funny.

And, you're still an obsessed troll, who *can't* refute/debate
the *topic*...

Atually, I made this the topic, so I am on topic.

( Delusions of adequacy... )

PLus, Net-Godist fantasies.

Ah,
the number of times when I personally have had you twist in the wind.

More delusions. Still, if it helps you get through your miserable,
divorced days...

I believe MOD is male.

Yet, you could be wrong...

Yet I am not, because MOD wrote that his ex-wife did x y and z. Now, I
realize that with teh new love of your life, it could be possible that both
of you are male,

Ah, the true siren call of the " inclusive " guy...

Actually, my love of my life is a fantastic and very feminine, and
strong, woman. She loves that I'm a *man*, and not a faminised,
nancy boy metrosexual.

Sorry, too bad for you. Why do you so much *dislike gay men* ?

I know a few gay men, and they're good guys, and good friends. I
don't want to have sex with them, but theres a lot of women I
don't wnat to have sex with, either.

I'd rather save all that for my one lady, thank you very much.

So, why do you *hate gays* ?

but for some reason I have to think that his was
traditional marraige.

Could be. But, as you *should know if you had a Polaroid of a clue*,
Feminist *isn't* a synonym for woman...

Oh, that isn't attacking the messenger, that is debating the issue.

Calling someone you don't like, gay, is " debate " ?

Wrong. No soup for you...

And, male feminists are among the worst of sexist scum. Their
self hating sex makes no difference to their *views*, or their
views being offal.

Yes, I know that feminist male rant that follows to cover-up your
ineptitude.

Wow, I predicted that accurately. Would that be because you are a broken
record?

Or, is gravity, still gravity, even the next day ?

You apparently can't grasp... *consistancy*...

laughs

I wonder, Andre, is this vitriole like viagra for you, the only way
to get it up. To be so insecure in one's gender that you have to lash out
at anything that is not a die-hard, union card carrying male is usually the
sign of a homosexual.

ROTFLMAO ! Well, my S/O would seriously disagree with you.

But, then again, she *knows better*. You, you're just helplessly and
projectingly ignorantly, wallowing in self serving self imposed
*ignorance*.

laughs But, relaly, why do you *hate gays so much* ?

No, just yours, as you were *unable* to debate/refute the *topic*.

Actually, I proved the topic.

laughs

Consistancy is so important. Thank you for continuing to be
*unable* to deal in *issues*...

laughs

I will give you the consistency one ... you are consistently clueless.

Says the guy who claims to *know* my sexuality *better than my S/O...

ROTFLMAO !!!

Why DO you hate gays so much ?

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
From my perspective, the NCP should pay more that 50% of the cost
associated with the upbringing of the child/children. Why? Because
it takes a hell of a lot more energy than $$$'s to raise the kids.

No problem. If the " energy " is *too much* for you, then hand
over the kids to Dad, and pay *him* 70% of the " costs "...

Again, here we have a wonderful example of a woman who demands that
men *be responsible for her sole choices*...

Kahlooless ...

Yes, you are. As you again prove that you *cannot* refute/debate
the *topic*.

Thank you for continuing to display your deep *inabilities*.

You're still funny.

And, you're still an obsessed troll, who *can't* refute/debate
the *topic*...

Atually, I made this the topic, so I am on topic.

( Delusions of adequacy... )

PLus, Net-Godist fantasies.

Ah,
the number of times when I personally have had you twist in the wind.

More delusions. Still, if it helps you get through your miserable,
divorced days...

I believe MOD is male.

Yet, you could be wrong...

Yet I am not, because MOD wrote that his ex-wife did x y and z. Now, I
realize that with teh new love of your life, it could be possible that both
of you are male,

Ah, the true siren call of the " inclusive " guy...

Actually, my love of my life is a fantastic and very feminine, and
strong, woman. She loves that I'm a *man*, and not a faminised,
nancy boy metrosexual.

Sorry, too bad for you. Why do you so much *dislike gay men* ?

I know a few gay men, and they're good guys, and good friends. I
don't want to have sex with them, but theres a lot of women I
don't wnat to have sex with, either.

I'd rather save all that for my one lady, thank you very much.

So, why do you *hate gays* ?

but for some reason I have to think that his was
traditional marraige.

Could be. But, as you *should know if you had a Polaroid of a clue*,
Feminist *isn't* a synonym for woman...

Oh, that isn't attacking the messenger, that is debating the issue.

Calling someone you don't like, gay, is " debate " ?

Wrong. No soup for you...

And, male feminists are among the worst of sexist scum. Their
self hating sex makes no difference to their *views*, or their
views being offal.

Yes, I know that feminist male rant that follows to cover-up your
ineptitude.

Wow, I predicted that accurately. Would that be because you are a broken
record?

Or, is gravity, still gravity, even the next day ?

You apparently can't grasp... *consistancy*...

laughs

I wonder, Andre, is this vitriole like viagra for you, the only way
to get it up. To be so insecure in one's gender that you have to lash out
at anything that is not a die-hard, union card carrying male is usually the
sign of a homosexual.

ROTFLMAO ! Well, my S/O would seriously disagree with you.

But, then again, she *knows better*. You, you're just helplessly and
projectingly ignorantly, wallowing in self serving self imposed
*ignorance*.

laughs But, relaly, why do you *hate gays so much* ?

No, just yours, as you were *unable* to debate/refute the *topic*.

Actually, I proved the topic.

laughs

Consistancy is so important. Thank you for continuing to be
*unable* to deal in *issues*...

laughs

I will give you the consistency one ... you are consistently clueless.

Says the guy who claims to *know* my sexuality *better than my S/O...

ROTFLMAO !!!

Why DO you hate gays so much ?

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven"

The sex is great, the conversations are even better, and we
give all of ourselves to each other. Life is damned good.

But, since you are *such a fool* as to ASSume that the small
facet of myself that is appropriate to these issues is *all*
of me, well, its no wonder that you maintain the status of
*willfully and ignorantly foolish ASSumer*.

You know *nothing*, and you're too ****in' *dumb* to even take
your own *hypocritical* " advice ". Hypocrite much ? Yes...
you do.

You're funny. Pathetic, but funny.

shrug And, you are a one note ad hom factory, utterly INCAPABLE
of discussing or debating *anything* but whom you *hate for being
better than you*.

I have the Love Of My Life, fool. Too bad, so sad... for *you*.

laughs

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven"

The sex is great, the conversations are even better, and we
give all of ourselves to each other. Life is damned good.

But, since you are *such a fool* as to ASSume that the small
facet of myself that is appropriate to these issues is *all*
of me, well, its no wonder that you maintain the status of
*willfully and ignorantly foolish ASSumer*.

You know *nothing*, and you're too ****in' *dumb* to even take
your own *hypocritical* " advice ". Hypocrite much ? Yes...
you do.

You're funny. Pathetic, but funny.

shrug And, you are a one note ad hom factory, utterly INCAPABLE
of discussing or debating *anything* but whom you *hate for being
better than you*.

I have the Love Of My Life, fool. Too bad, so sad... for *you*.

laughs

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Other relevent groups restored. Only fools want to *hide*.

My Own Doppelganger ) exuded:
The real funny thing is that he thinks I'm a woman

50/50 odds.

and a feminist.

Thats a slam dunk. There are male Feminists, you know...

Oh, you don't. To your foolishness, " Feminist " equals " woman ".

Got it.

Maybe I should take a walk on the wild side and find out if it's
better. LOL!

Well, getting a life would help you...

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:04:49 +0800, "Rambler" iamrambler (at) yahoo
dot com scribbled in his own feces:

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) drooled:
"Andre Lieven"

The sex is great, the conversations are even better, and we
give all of ourselves to each other. Life is damned good.

But, since you are *such a fool* as to ASSume that the small
facet of myself that is appropriate to these issues is *all*
of me, well, its no wonder that you maintain the status of
*willfully and ignorantly foolish ASSumer*.

You know *nothing*, and you're too ****in' *dumb* to even take
your own *hypocritical* " advice ". Hypocrite much ? Yes...
you do.

You're funny. Pathetic, but funny.

projection

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.