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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/mental...ons-to-be.html
Saturday, January 21, 2006 Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown? "The Sun Story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and no arrest were made. The story had suspicious timing-it came out the same day as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed private debt collectors to collect child support." by Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. When confronted with extreme deprivations of rights, reactions differ substantially, especially as between incendiary agitation or pacifically seeking change. There was Booker T. Washington who sought advancement through personal development and industrial education, versus the radical approach of WEB Dubois who thought of Washington as an accommodationist. You had Malcolm X who had no use for the non-violent approach of Martin Luther King. There was the National Women's Suffrage Association that was only run by women and believed that it was more important that they receive suffrage before blacks, versus the American Women's Suffrage Movement that believed women's suffrage and black suffrage were equally important and guaranteed men leadership positions. You had the Quaker pacifist abolitionist versus the pike-wielding guerilla abolitionist tactics of John Brown. Yesterday, Fathers-4-Justice, a British based fathers' rights group, again made national headlines when an alleged plot to kidnap English Prime Minister Tony Blair's son Leo was revealed. No doubt, if there was such a plan, poetic justice was in mind. Fathers' rights activists believe the courts have kidnapped their children. In one Internet chat group I will not name, a father writes, "When the government takes our children, is it time to take THEIR children, one might ask?" Fathers' rights groups quickly denounced the kidnapping plot. Faced with the publicity, fathers-4-justice founder, Matt O'Connor, has disbanded the group, although from their website, it is not clear whether the move is permanent. Some note the stories source, "The Sun," is a British Tabloid often strewn with shrill headlines, scantly clad women, and is not noted for quality journalism. There is the motive of the British police to exaggerate what appears to be stupid pub talk (if even that) after years of embarrassing tactics by Fathers-4-Justice, including stunts like climbing the walls of Buckingham Palace, scaling St. Paul's Cathedral and the London Eye, climbing the clock tower at Westminster, and throwing purple flour at the Prime Minister while giving a speech in House of Commons. On the website MensNewDaily.com, in an "Official Statement from an Alleged Blair Kidnapping Plotter," Martin Mathews inculpates The Sun: "Late last night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me £10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was a Matt O'Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the group." The Sun story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and no arrests were made. The story had suspicious timing-it came out the same day as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed private debt collectors to collect child support. The sad truth is that unspeakable deprivations are being visited upon fathers. Though they may be completely fit, they endure losing their children and their fortunes on attorney fees and mind-boggling child support orders. Children are being raised fatherless. Men are literally being sent to debtor's prison unable to pay astronomical child support awards, some predicated on incomes that are not real but invented under a theory known as "attributed income." Restraining order abuse abounds, so that men cannot even be assured they can live in their own homes. The sad truth is that the while this so-called "kidnapping plot" was quickly-and rightly-condemned, the daily kidnapping of children by family court systems around the world has not. Understandably, public support is with fathers. On a ballot question that was on over 30 state representative districts in Massachusetts, shared parenting won by an 86% margin. But the fathers' rights movement has many problems turning this popular opinion into success. Some of the fault lies with fathers themselves. Faced with wrongs far greater than say, to pluck one out of history, higher taxes and no representative in Parliament igniting a revolution, they sit docilely by instead of joining and helping a fathers' rights group. Fiery orations prove awkward before small audiences. Then there are the wealthy, who believe in our cause but refuse to provide the one-thing legislatures understand-lobbying money. Why don't fathers dress up in suits and ties and appear as intellectuals on Nightline or The Charlie Rose Show? No doubt they could, but they just aren't invited. Larry Parnas, managing editor of the Daily Hampshire Gazette admits that fathers' rights groups are unfairly shunned by the media. At best, this leaves you with Batman perched on a ledge at Buckingham Palace. At worst, you have those that are becoming increasingly disillusioned with a movement that has produced little change over the past 30 years despite widespread public support, and who are seething that politicians and judges do not change their ways. Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. Mr. Del Gallo is spokesman for the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition. posted by Mike LaSalle at 11:16 AM 2 Comments: chrislf said... The men who lead are always notoriously independant and idiosyncratic, Ghandhi sat and got in the way and was followed. His acts of defiance were public. His public were largely the dispossessed and poverty stricken. Today it is not so easy with so many people being apathetic on the one hand and fully bound by the realities of complex daily living on the other. Revolutionary action is usually violent and destructive and born from irrational hatreds. Not always of course. Today in western democracies the governmental forces are very strong and revolutionary action would be met with much death. No decent man seeks that. But what we are seeing is a mass of individuals who are taking a different route. A mass dissaffection. Marriage is on the wane, not because of simply father issues but the whole raft of LAW that diminishes men and marriage and ties them up in bureaucracy. Men are voting with their feet. This does not threaten the State, as passive, public resistenec did or revolution did. The State WILL be threatened when their power is diminished and THIS WILL HAPPEN by the same action by men when responding to the marriage issue. A walk-out on a mass level in an area the governments NEED.. Men will NOT DEFEND a country that marginalises them. Even now most western countries have difficulty raising sufficient numbers for their armed forces, just at the time when the polity is moving toward enforcement of its aims by arms. The reversal of feminist policy and its effects CAN come about by a more vocal expression, an articulation of the reason why young men no longer want to serve their country. If there is a rallying point anywhere it is here. Ghandi-isation of the military recruitment effort. Sit downs outside recruitment offices. Not anti-war, but anti-defense. Saying clearly - the society you have forced on us against our will and to our diminishment, is NOT WORTH DEFENDING. Throwing the bureaucracy into disarray by doing all the tests and interviews and then telling them to shove it. That will get the message to Gov't in a way they will understand. 6:02 PM Eric said... There are some very valid points made by the above two authors. However, neither will solve anything with just rhetoric and repeating the same observations over and over. The men not marrying are not marrying because it is the feminazis plan for men NOT to marry. The destruction of the family and marriage is a dogma of the feminazis. Not only men, but the masses in general are being "dumbed down" purposefully to ensure the feminazi goals. One only needs to look at an 8th grade test given to students in the 1800's to see how true this is (very few college graduates-including me-could ever pass such a test). Instead of teaching and focusing the three R's, the feminazi and homosexual (joined at the hip) influence for social reform is the mainstay of our indoctrination centers, formally called schools. As each generation gets dumber, any movement for true equality and rights is designed to flounder and expire. When you have a government that refuses to acknowledge that we are a Republic as opposed to a democracy, what else can one expect when the masses docilely obey and don't know the difference? How can they? They have been purposefully "dumbed down." "Oh! That's not fair!" is about as far as anything goes because men have been indoctrinated NOT to be men. Oh sure, men sit around and moan and groan to each other. Then, someone says something like let's do what has worked throughout history for reform such as demonstrating or peaceful civil disobedience, the moaners and groaners back down in fear that their PERSONAL situation may be tarnished for such participation and nothing happens as evidenced by the demonstrations planned in the past such as the "Million Dads March." As they back down, things only get worse-not better...unless you want say that making words politically correct in statute laws better...as they tighten the noose around our necks. Some say that when things get really, really bad, we will stand up and win. I say: Forcibly taking our children, wealth and property is not really, really bad? Some say that we are too angry to be of any good. How can that be? Being angry constructively, is the only way to make change. Since when is it wrong to take a natural emotion to effect change? I know men that refuse to play. They don't pay child support (good for them). They stand on street corners with signs (all by themselves). They have no qualms about being put in jail for their beliefs. These men are a dying breed as the indoctrination centers continue to espouse their filth and turn out "good little drone citizen workers" for the governments and corporations to exploit. If you are not willing to put your beliefs on the table no matter where you are, not willing to sacrifice for those beliefs, not willing to stand up for those beliefs, not willing to sacrifice your money and future, not willing to die for those beliefs...you have no beliefs, morals or principles! Me thinks that you deserve what is happening to you, your children and their children... May God have pity on us that do have integrity for we will surely be doomed by our fellow non-doing, dumbed down, felow "men" that refuse to look at history as they repeat the same mistakes over and over and over. Eric Ericson |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown?
Thanks for the news, Dusty. I'm very sorry to hear this about F4J, and I hope their disbanding is only temporary. They were a glimmer of hope over here. Interestingly enough, the editor of the Sun (the paper that first published the questionable story alleging that there was a plot on the part of F4J to kidnap Blair's child) is a feminist who has used the paper in her "high-profile" campaign against domestic violence. She was also recently arrested for assaulting her husband: http://in.news.yahoo.com/051103/137/60v1h.html - Ron ^*^ Dusty wrote: http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/mental...ons-to-be.html Saturday, January 21, 2006 Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown? "The Sun Story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and no arrest were made. The story had suspicious timing-it came out the same day as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed private debt collectors to collect child support." by Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. When confronted with extreme deprivations of rights, reactions differ substantially, especially as between incendiary agitation or pacifically seeking change. There was Booker T. Washington who sought advancement through personal development and industrial education, versus the radical approach of WEB Dubois who thought of Washington as an accommodationist. You had Malcolm X who had no use for the non-violent approach of Martin Luther King. There was the National Women's Suffrage Association that was only run by women and believed that it was more important that they receive suffrage before blacks, versus the American Women's Suffrage Movement that believed women's suffrage and black suffrage were equally important and guaranteed men leadership positions. You had the Quaker pacifist abolitionist versus the pike-wielding guerilla abolitionist tactics of John Brown. Yesterday, Fathers-4-Justice, a British based fathers' rights group, again made national headlines when an alleged plot to kidnap English Prime Minister Tony Blair's son Leo was revealed. No doubt, if there was such a plan, poetic justice was in mind. Fathers' rights activists believe the courts have kidnapped their children. In one Internet chat group I will not name, a father writes, "When the government takes our children, is it time to take THEIR children, one might ask?" Fathers' rights groups quickly denounced the kidnapping plot. Faced with the publicity, fathers-4-justice founder, Matt O'Connor, has disbanded the group, although from their website, it is not clear whether the move is permanent. Some note the stories source, "The Sun," is a British Tabloid often strewn with shrill headlines, scantly clad women, and is not noted for quality journalism. There is the motive of the British police to exaggerate what appears to be stupid pub talk (if even that) after years of embarrassing tactics by Fathers-4-Justice, including stunts like climbing the walls of Buckingham Palace, scaling St. Paul's Cathedral and the London Eye, climbing the clock tower at Westminster, and throwing purple flour at the Prime Minister while giving a speech in House of Commons. On the website MensNewDaily.com, in an "Official Statement from an Alleged Blair Kidnapping Plotter," Martin Mathews inculpates The Sun: "Late last night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me £10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was a Matt O'Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the group." The Sun story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and no arrests were made. The story had suspicious timing-it came out the same day as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed private debt collectors to collect child support. The sad truth is that unspeakable deprivations are being visited upon fathers. Though they may be completely fit, they endure losing their children and their fortunes on attorney fees and mind-boggling child support orders. Children are being raised fatherless. Men are literally being sent to debtor's prison unable to pay astronomical child support awards, some predicated on incomes that are not real but invented under a theory known as "attributed income." Restraining order abuse abounds, so that men cannot even be assured they can live in their own homes. The sad truth is that the while this so-called "kidnapping plot" was quickly-and rightly-condemned, the daily kidnapping of children by family court systems around the world has not. Understandably, public support is with fathers. On a ballot question that was on over 30 state representative districts in Massachusetts, shared parenting won by an 86% margin. But the fathers' rights movement has many problems turning this popular opinion into success. Some of the fault lies with fathers themselves. Faced with wrongs far greater than say, to pluck one out of history, higher taxes and no representative in Parliament igniting a revolution, they sit docilely by instead of joining and helping a fathers' rights group. Fiery orations prove awkward before small audiences. Then there are the wealthy, who believe in our cause but refuse to provide the one-thing legislatures understand-lobbying money. Why don't fathers dress up in suits and ties and appear as intellectuals on Nightline or The Charlie Rose Show? No doubt they could, but they just aren't invited. Larry Parnas, managing editor of the Daily Hampshire Gazette admits that fathers' rights groups are unfairly shunned by the media. At best, this leaves you with Batman perched on a ledge at Buckingham Palace. At worst, you have those that are becoming increasingly disillusioned with a movement that has produced little change over the past 30 years despite widespread public support, and who are seething that politicians and judges do not change their ways. Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. Mr. Del Gallo is spokesman for the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition. posted by Mike LaSalle at 11:16 AM 2 Comments: chrislf said... The men who lead are always notoriously independant and idiosyncratic, Ghandhi sat and got in the way and was followed. His acts of defiance were public. His public were largely the dispossessed and poverty stricken. Today it is not so easy with so many people being apathetic on the one hand and fully bound by the realities of complex daily living on the other. Revolutionary action is usually violent and destructive and born from irrational hatreds. Not always of course. Today in western democracies the governmental forces are very strong and revolutionary action would be met with much death. No decent man seeks that. But what we are seeing is a mass of individuals who are taking a different route. A mass dissaffection. Marriage is on the wane, not because of simply father issues but the whole raft of LAW that diminishes men and marriage and ties them up in bureaucracy. Men are voting with their feet. This does not threaten the State, as passive, public resistenec did or revolution did. The State WILL be threatened when their power is diminished and THIS WILL HAPPEN by the same action by men when responding to the marriage issue. A walk-out on a mass level in an area the governments NEED.. Men will NOT DEFEND a country that marginalises them. Even now most western countries have difficulty raising sufficient numbers for their armed forces, just at the time when the polity is moving toward enforcement of its aims by arms. The reversal of feminist policy and its effects CAN come about by a more vocal expression, an articulation of the reason why young men no longer want to serve their country. If there is a rallying point anywhere it is here. Ghandi-isation of the military recruitment effort. Sit downs outside recruitment offices. Not anti-war, but anti-defense. Saying clearly - the society you have forced on us against our will and to our diminishment, is NOT WORTH DEFENDING. Throwing the bureaucracy into disarray by doing all the tests and interviews and then telling them to shove it. That will get the message to Gov't in a way they will understand. 6:02 PM Eric said... There are some very valid points made by the above two authors. However, neither will solve anything with just rhetoric and repeating the same observations over and over. The men not marrying are not marrying because it is the feminazis plan for men NOT to marry. The destruction of the family and marriage is a dogma of the feminazis. Not only men, but the masses in general are being "dumbed down" purposefully to ensure the feminazi goals. One only needs to look at an 8th grade test given to students in the 1800's to see how true this is (very few college graduates-including me-could ever pass such a test). Instead of teaching and focusing the three R's, the feminazi and homosexual (joined at the hip) influence for social reform is the mainstay of our indoctrination centers, formally called schools. As each generation gets dumber, any movement for true equality and rights is designed to flounder and expire. When you have a government that refuses to acknowledge that we are a Republic as opposed to a democracy, what else can one expect when the masses docilely obey and don't know the difference? How can they? They have been purposefully "dumbed down." "Oh! That's not fair!" is about as far as anything goes because men have been indoctrinated NOT to be men. Oh sure, men sit around and moan and groan to each other. Then, someone says something like let's do what has worked throughout history for reform such as demonstrating or peaceful civil disobedience, the moaners and groaners back down in fear that their PERSONAL situation may be tarnished for such participation and nothing happens as evidenced by the demonstrations planned in the past such as the "Million Dads March." As they back down, things only get worse-not better...unless you want say that making words politically correct in statute laws better...as they tighten the noose around our necks. Some say that when things get really, really bad, we will stand up and win. I say: Forcibly taking our children, wealth and property is not really, really bad? Some say that we are too angry to be of any good. How can that be? Being angry constructively, is the only way to make change. Since when is it wrong to take a natural emotion to effect change? I know men that refuse to play. They don't pay child support (good for them). They stand on street corners with signs (all by themselves). They have no qualms about being put in jail for their beliefs. These men are a dying breed as the indoctrination centers continue to espouse their filth and turn out "good little drone citizen workers" for the governments and corporations to exploit. If you are not willing to put your beliefs on the table no matter where you are, not willing to sacrifice for those beliefs, not willing to stand up for those beliefs, not willing to sacrifice your money and future, not willing to die for those beliefs...you have no beliefs, morals or principles! Me thinks that you deserve what is happening to you, your children and their children... May God have pity on us that do have integrity for we will surely be doomed by our fellow non-doing, dumbed down, felow "men" that refuse to look at history as they repeat the same mistakes over and over and over. Eric Ericson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown?
"Werebat" wrote in message
newsCSAf.9358$NE.7989@dukeread12... Thanks for the news, Dusty. I'm very sorry to hear this about F4J, and I hope their disbanding is only temporary. They were a glimmer of hope over here. Interestingly enough, the editor of the Sun (the paper that first published the questionable story alleging that there was a plot on the part of F4J to kidnap Blair's child) is a feminist who has used the paper in her "high-profile" campaign against domestic violence. She was also recently arrested for assaulting her husband: http://in.news.yahoo.com/051103/137/60v1h.html - Ron ^*^ Absolutely true on that one, Ron. Rebekah Wade is a perfect example of what lengths our friends, the radfems, will go to in order to push their agenda upon the rest of us. Personally, I don't buy a word of the story that the Sun put out - where are the arrests? Where's the corroborating evidence and statements from Scotland Yard?? I feel certain that she used her influence to get a trash story about F4J published in her rag of a paper (even Brits think the Sun isn't worth the effort to use to line the bottom of one's bird cage with!). And made certain that the story was so sensational, so outrageous, that if enough "sister" newspapers picked up and ran the same story (newspapers these days just change the by-line and reprint the same "information" over and over again - there is little, if any actual journalism left in the media), that it would be believed. Welcome to Yellow Journalism at it's finest my friends. The problem with Yellow Journalism is that if enough gullible people read it (and their are a $#*%load of them out there just chomping at the bit to discuss it 'round the water cooler on Monday morning) again and again, they will believe it as fact. This was a favorite tactic of Hitler and Stalin - yes, this has been tried many times before, just look at the results those two assholes got by telling lies so often and for so long that their own people (not to mention the rest of the world) believed the lies over the truth!! I believe Hitler once said, "Tell a lie long enough and anyone will believe it." OK, maybe I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea. I'd bet you a dollar (or a beer, take your pick) that that's exactly what Wade was hoping to do. Oh, I've not heard another peep from the other side of the pond about what, if anything, ever happened to her being caught beating up on her hubby... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown?
I'm fairly familiar with the British press, and I agree with the
comments below about it. The Sun is the worst of the trashy tabloids. It is now pretty clear that this story was the result of collaboration between Sun reporters and police officers who had a vendetta against Fathers For Justice because of the embarrassment they had caused to law enforcement by their successful stunts designed to call attention to the plight of divorced fathers. In 2003 a Fathers for Justice activist conducted a sit-in on a construction crane near Tower Bridge for several days. As part of the police's vendetta against the fathers' group, they unjustifiably closed off many roads in the area. This action infuriated commuters who turned their wrath on the group, just as the police had intended. However, in the subsequent court action, the activist was acquitted of causing a public nuisance. In addition, records of police communications that came out at the trial indicated clearly that the police knew the road closures were unnecessary, and were intended merely to bring pressure to bear on the crane-sitter and the fathers' organization. Having said all that, the fact remains that many people read the Sun. How seriously they take it, I don't know. What this whole episode indicates is the strength of the opposition fathers' groups face. My impression is, however, that there are other papers in Britain that are much more willing to listen to the fathers' side of things than the Sun (or, for that matter, the politically correct mainstream media in the U.S.) I remember reading, during a visit to Britain several years ago, some extremely hostile coverage of the bullying tactics of the British Child Support Agency. "Dusty" wrote in message news "Werebat" wrote in message newsCSAf.9358$NE.7989@dukeread12... Thanks for the news, Dusty. I'm very sorry to hear this about F4J, and I hope their disbanding is only temporary. They were a glimmer of hope over here. Interestingly enough, the editor of the Sun (the paper that first published the questionable story alleging that there was a plot on the part of F4J to kidnap Blair's child) is a feminist who has used the paper in her "high-profile" campaign against domestic violence. She was also recently arrested for assaulting her husband: http://in.news.yahoo.com/051103/137/60v1h.html - Ron ^*^ Absolutely true on that one, Ron. Rebekah Wade is a perfect example of what lengths our friends, the radfems, will go to in order to push their agenda upon the rest of us. Personally, I don't buy a word of the story that the Sun put out - where are the arrests? Where's the corroborating evidence and statements from Scotland Yard?? I feel certain that she used her influence to get a trash story about F4J published in her rag of a paper (even Brits think the Sun isn't worth the effort to use to line the bottom of one's bird cage with!). And made certain that the story was so sensational, so outrageous, that if enough "sister" newspapers picked up and ran the same story (newspapers these days just change the by-line and reprint the same "information" over and over again - there is little, if any actual journalism left in the media), that it would be believed. Welcome to Yellow Journalism at it's finest my friends. The problem with Yellow Journalism is that if enough gullible people read it (and their are a $#*%load of them out there just chomping at the bit to discuss it 'round the water cooler on Monday morning) again and again, they will believe it as fact. This was a favorite tactic of Hitler and Stalin - yes, this has been tried many times before, just look at the results those two assholes got by telling lies so often and for so long that their own people (not to mention the rest of the world) believed the lies over the truth!! I believe Hitler once said, "Tell a lie long enough and anyone will believe it." OK, maybe I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea. I'd bet you a dollar (or a beer, take your pick) that that's exactly what Wade was hoping to do. Oh, I've not heard another peep from the other side of the pond about what, if anything, ever happened to her being caught beating up on her hubby... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown?
"Dusty" wrote in message news "Werebat" wrote in message newsCSAf.9358$NE.7989@dukeread12... Thanks for the news, Dusty. I'm very sorry to hear this about F4J, and I hope their disbanding is only temporary. They were a glimmer of hope over here. Interestingly enough, the editor of the Sun (the paper that first published the questionable story alleging that there was a plot on the part of F4J to kidnap Blair's child) is a feminist who has used the paper in her "high-profile" campaign against domestic violence. She was also recently arrested for assaulting her husband: http://in.news.yahoo.com/051103/137/60v1h.html - Ron ^*^ Absolutely true on that one, Ron. Rebekah Wade is a perfect example of what lengths our friends, the radfems, will go to in order to push their agenda upon the rest of us. Personally, I don't buy a word of the story that the Sun put out - where are the arrests? Where's the corroborating evidence and statements from Scotland Yard?? I feel certain that she used her influence to get a trash story about F4J published in her rag of a paper (even Brits think the Sun isn't worth the effort to use to line the bottom of one's bird cage with!). And made certain that the story was so sensational, so outrageous, that if enough "sister" newspapers picked up and ran the same story (newspapers these days just change the by-line and reprint the same "information" over and over again - there is little, if any actual journalism left in the media), that it would be believed. Welcome to Yellow Journalism at it's finest my friends. The problem with Yellow Journalism is that if enough gullible people read it (and their are a $#*%load of them out there just chomping at the bit to discuss it 'round the water cooler on Monday morning) again and again, they will believe it as fact. This was a favorite tactic of Hitler and Stalin - yes, this has been tried many times before, just look at the results those two assholes got by telling lies so often and for so long that their own people (not to mention the rest of the world) believed the lies over the truth!! I believe Hitler once said, "Tell a lie long enough and anyone will believe it." OK, maybe I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea. I'd bet you a dollar (or a beer, take your pick) that that's exactly what Wade was hoping to do. Oh, I've not heard another peep from the other side of the pond about what, if anything, ever happened to her being caught beating up on her hubby... I guess that's the great thing about our democracies - our leaders never lie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
New Milford Hospital EMERGENCY! (John Sussman, MD to pay for new illustrations?) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | May 14th 04 01:35 AM |
Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 25th 03 02:04 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |
Deadbeat Fathers are a growing problem throughout the region | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 5 | November 12th 03 02:33 AM |