If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1011
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "Gini" wrote in message news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07... snip ?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents waiting for a child than there are children to place. That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women. That is another issue, nutjob. == You lose on all counts. == ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid. Thanks for the laughs :-) Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion every time and all you have here is emotion. I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not notifying the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact with his child is not stealing. What a dork! Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg up, dear. I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy. My comment was that you are incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them, but feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even knowledge of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"? |
#1012
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"pandora" wrote in message newsbednUQ2BbzVzoDYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07... "Hyerdahl" wrote teachrmama wrote: ...................... As I said, let the babies be adopted by loving couples. There is always a waiting list for babies. How do you interpret that to mean society is taking on the burden? First, it is unconstitutional to steal babies from parents to give to couples. == OMG! My adopted son is unconstitutional! == Hitler would like your idea, but no one else does. == Except all those adoptive families. == Secondly, society takes on the burden by increased costs in taxes and crime. And there are not enough families to adopt all the children of single parents. == ?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents waiting for a child than there are children to place. == You lose on all counts. == ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid. Thanks for the laughs :-) I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not notifying the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact with his child is not stealing. What a dork! I'm sure you'd like to have your child stolen from you if you fell on hard times. You're disgusting. I said no such thing. I said that the women who continue to bring child after child into this world with no way to support them except taxpayer funds should not be permitted to continue to sponge off the taxpayers that way. If they choose not to support themselves or their children, that would be child neglect, whould it not? One child, one mistake, understandable. But, after that, they should not be permitted to keep children that they cannot afford to raise. Adopt them out to people who care enought to provide for them. I said nothing about taking the children of people who fall on hard times. Pay attention. |
#1013
|
|||
|
|||
C4M, Moderated; was Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"pandora" wrote in message news:lcSdnRydbfGayYDYnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... Chris wrote: snip Precisely what is this burden that you speak of? The burden of being pregnant and having to choose between gestation and abortion...both of which are dangerous to her. Awwwwww.....whimper whine Why do you see whimpering where there is merely observation and fact? It's really too bad that such as you didn't die in childbirth. How...uh....mature of you. If she doesn't want the risks, tell her to keep her panties on. She doesn't have to get pregnant. And she does NOT become a victim just because she does get pregnant. |
#1014
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "Gini" wrote in message news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07... snip ?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents waiting for a child than there are children to place. That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women. That is another issue, nutjob. == You lose on all counts. == ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid. Thanks for the laughs :-) Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion every time and all you have here is emotion. I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not notifying the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact with his child is not stealing. What a dork! Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg up, dear. I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy. My comment was that you are incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them, but feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even knowledge of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"? You are dealing with a person speaking ghetto slang. The ideas being advanced seem so outrageous because they are based on experience from the projects. Here's a hint...a person who is "third leg up" needs to find a "third leg warmer" and hope to hell she doesn't get pregnant. Sorry if I spoiled your dinner. :-) |
#1015
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "Gini" wrote in message news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07... snip ?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents waiting for a child than there are children to place. That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women. That is another issue, nutjob. == You lose on all counts. == ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid. Thanks for the laughs :-) Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion every time and all you have here is emotion. I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not notifying the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact with his child is not stealing. What a dork! Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg up, dear. I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy. Neither does hyperdunce. My comment was that you are incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them, but feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even knowledge of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"? |
#1016
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Gini wrote:
"Ken Chaddock" wrote Hyerdahl wrote: Ken Chaddock wrote: Hyerdahl wrote: Ken Chaddock wrote: Here's what *I* believe about child support. Unless a man (like a woman) freely chooses to be a parent by acknowledging and accepting parental obligations and, thereby gaining absolutely equal and identical parental rights, he IS NOT a parent and SHOULD NOT be held responsible for any consequences arising from the exercise of the MOTHER's sovereign rights and authority. ....................................... a recent Swedish study published in The Lancet, says: "Children living with only one parent have a higher risk of death, mental illness and injury than those in two-parent families, even when their socioeconomic disadvantage is taken into account." These are just two of an enormous body of research that almost universially shows that children fare better in a two parent family than in a single parent family...particularly when that single parent family is headed by a woman. No. There has never been a study that can eliminate the effects of poverty so poverty is the crucial factor in homes without two incomes. Sure there have. Most studies have considered the socio-economic factors involved and what they've found is that in families with comparable income levels, child rearing outcomes in those families with two parents OR single parent families with a male head of household are dramatically more favourable than in single parent families with a female as head of household. This result has been remarkably consistent across all scio-economic strata... So, now you have nothing there. You never did, really, since the govt. cannot promise a child...even one parent....let alone two. That's true, no but God can guarantee two parents...or even *any* parents...but the Government *CAN* promise NOT TO unnecessarily disrupt or damage the parental arrangement and they *CAN* promise NOT TO reward someone who does... The govt. can only set up custody and divide the assets of a marriage now dissolved, Ken. And that's all the govt. does. The "government" has created and continues to foster an environment which rewards individuals (overwhelmingly women) for disrupting and destroying families. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Wait until the next teacher gets pregnant with her 13 year old student, (shouldn't be too long to wait...seems they're all "doing it")...;-) But this time we'll have to money to back the kid and his family all the way to the SC...a case *very much* like RoevWade...and we'll see if Bill Of Rights "Equal Protection" clause is actually meaningful: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ...Ken == Nicely argued, Ken. I vote you leader ;-) Thankyou, thankyou...no applause please...just throw money ;-) ....Ken |
#1017
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
pandora wrote: "Gini" wrote in message news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07... "Hyerdahl" wrote teachrmama wrote: ...................... As I said, let the babies be adopted by loving couples. There is always a waiting list for babies. How do you interpret that to mean society is taking on the burden? First, it is unconstitutional to steal babies from parents to give to couples. == OMG! My adopted son is unconstitutional! == Hitler would like your idea, but no one else does. == Except all those adoptive families. == Secondly, society takes on the burden by increased costs in taxes and crime. And there are not enough families to adopt all the children of single parents. == ?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents waiting for a child than there are children to place. == You lose on all counts. == ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid. Thanks for the laughs :-) So says a baby stealer. I'm not laughing. Poor gini....has got to be a man. :-) |
#1018
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "Gini" wrote in message news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07... snip ?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents waiting for a child than there are children to place. That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women. That is another issue, nutjob. == You lose on all counts. == ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid. Thanks for the laughs :-) Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion every time and all you have here is emotion. I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not notifying the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact with his child is not stealing. What a dork! Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg up, dear. I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy. My comment was that you are incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them, but feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even knowledge of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"? There is no double standard in how the laws are applied, 'mama'. Women and men have the same exact rights to not divulge their sexual partners AND the same rights to be primary parents prior to the divorce. What is it about those things you don't understand? |
#1019
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "Gini" wrote in message news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07... snip ?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents waiting for a child than there are children to place. That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women. That is another issue, nutjob. == You lose on all counts. == ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid. Thanks for the laughs :-) Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion every time and all you have here is emotion. I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not notifying the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact with his child is not stealing. What a dork! Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg up, dear. I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy. My comment was that you are incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them, but feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even knowledge of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"? There is no double standard in how the laws are applied, 'mama'. Women and men have the same exact rights to not divulge their sexual partners AND the same rights to be primary parents prior to the divorce. What is it about those things you don't understand? What is it about unmarried sex, woman gets pregnant (perhaps multiple times), keeps child(ren) from father(s) and lives on taxpayer money that YOU don't understand? Do you think that we, as taxpayers, should continue to foot the bill for these women whose children will be raised in grinding poverty? You expect responsibility from men--what about from women? And what is there about working and earning money to support one's family that makes that person be considered not a primary caregiver? What kind of care do you think the other parent would be able to give *without* the money earned by the working parent? You seem to feel that women are owed by men--that men should take care of women. Why is that, Hy? |
#1020
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "pandora" wrote in message newsbednUQ2BbzVzoDYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07... "Hyerdahl" wrote teachrmama wrote: ...................... As I said, let the babies be adopted by loving couples. There is always a waiting list for babies. How do you interpret that to mean society is taking on the burden? First, it is unconstitutional to steal babies from parents to give to couples. == OMG! My adopted son is unconstitutional! == Hitler would like your idea, but no one else does. == Except all those adoptive families. == Secondly, society takes on the burden by increased costs in taxes and crime. And there are not enough families to adopt all the children of single parents. == ?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents waiting for a child than there are children to place. == You lose on all counts. == ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid. Thanks for the laughs :-) I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not notifying the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact with his child is not stealing. What a dork! I'm sure you'd like to have your child stolen from you if you fell on hard times. You're disgusting. I said no such thing. I said that the women who continue to bring child after child into this world with no way to support them except taxpayer funds should not be permitted to continue to sponge off the taxpayers that way. If they choose not to support themselves or their children, that would be child neglect, whould it not? One child, one mistake, understandable. But, after that, they should not be permitted to keep children that they cannot afford to raise. Adopt them out to people who care enought to provide for them. I said nothing about taking the children of people who fall on hard times. Pay attention. TM, while I agree with the sentiment you are putting forth, I disagree with the government covering for people's unintended results of bad judgment. Unless people return to accepting their own responsibility, including their mistakes, whatever they may be, nothing will change. Right now, feminists are demanding society 'fix' all 'problems', even when there is no problem and it has led to a society we have today that has become totally dependent on the government to take care of even mundane things. Phil #3 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | March 8th 06 06:45 AM |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |