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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
"Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
Don wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century. The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best, and always has. Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable outcome. MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so for the sake of our children. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? 1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. 2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay there and help raise the child. The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands" forced to support women who don't want to work. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many *******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them, or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts children. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
Don wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century. The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best, and always has. Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable outcome. MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so for the sake of our children. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? 1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. 2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay there and help raise the child. The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands" forced to support women who don't want to work. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many *******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them, or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts children. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
Don wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century. The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best, and always has. Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable outcome. MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so for the sake of our children. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? 1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. 2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay there and help raise the child. The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands" forced to support women who don't want to work. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many *******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them, or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts children. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
Don wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century. The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best, and always has. Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable outcome. MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so for the sake of our children. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? 1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. 2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay there and help raise the child. The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands" forced to support women who don't want to work. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many *******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them, or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts children. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
I agree with what you are saying but my point was only in extreme cases.
1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. Too late, the baby is already born. Father will not take custody, will not shared parent and maybe even dissappears. Working mother with child turns to the state for help since can't make ends meet. The masses will in turn insist the government do something about it rather than pick up the tab. This is the only case where I believe at least some form of basic necessity support rather than let the taxpayers pick up the tab. But only if the father has the means to do so. If both do not have the means then ok taxpayers may need to pick up the tab. Although I do believe more can be done with national charities with government oversight and promotion. Bottomline support only where the working father does not want the child and the working mother cannot support herself. Also if you cannot afford to care for the child you give up custody to the parent that can care for the child. If the other parent is unwilling then the taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab and hence basic support. I agree with your points in most cases except where the father wants nothing to do with the child and the working mother cannot support herself. Unfortunately your views are extreme in our feminist society and therefore unlikely any politician will take on your cause. Shared parenting is at least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is for all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring things back to somewhere in the middle. "Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century. The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best, and always has. Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable outcome. MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so for the sake of our children. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? 1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. Too late now she is pregnant and has the baby. F 2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay there and help raise the child. The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands" forced to support women who don't want to work. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many *******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them, or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts children. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
I agree with what you are saying but my point was only in extreme cases.
1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. Too late, the baby is already born. Father will not take custody, will not shared parent and maybe even dissappears. Working mother with child turns to the state for help since can't make ends meet. The masses will in turn insist the government do something about it rather than pick up the tab. This is the only case where I believe at least some form of basic necessity support rather than let the taxpayers pick up the tab. But only if the father has the means to do so. If both do not have the means then ok taxpayers may need to pick up the tab. Although I do believe more can be done with national charities with government oversight and promotion. Bottomline support only where the working father does not want the child and the working mother cannot support herself. Also if you cannot afford to care for the child you give up custody to the parent that can care for the child. If the other parent is unwilling then the taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab and hence basic support. I agree with your points in most cases except where the father wants nothing to do with the child and the working mother cannot support herself. Unfortunately your views are extreme in our feminist society and therefore unlikely any politician will take on your cause. Shared parenting is at least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is for all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring things back to somewhere in the middle. "Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century. The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best, and always has. Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable outcome. MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so for the sake of our children. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? 1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. Too late now she is pregnant and has the baby. F 2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay there and help raise the child. The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands" forced to support women who don't want to work. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many *******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them, or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts children. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
I agree with what you are saying but my point was only in extreme cases.
1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. Too late, the baby is already born. Father will not take custody, will not shared parent and maybe even dissappears. Working mother with child turns to the state for help since can't make ends meet. The masses will in turn insist the government do something about it rather than pick up the tab. This is the only case where I believe at least some form of basic necessity support rather than let the taxpayers pick up the tab. But only if the father has the means to do so. If both do not have the means then ok taxpayers may need to pick up the tab. Although I do believe more can be done with national charities with government oversight and promotion. Bottomline support only where the working father does not want the child and the working mother cannot support herself. Also if you cannot afford to care for the child you give up custody to the parent that can care for the child. If the other parent is unwilling then the taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab and hence basic support. I agree with your points in most cases except where the father wants nothing to do with the child and the working mother cannot support herself. Unfortunately your views are extreme in our feminist society and therefore unlikely any politician will take on your cause. Shared parenting is at least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is for all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring things back to somewhere in the middle. "Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century. The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best, and always has. Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable outcome. MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so for the sake of our children. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? 1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. Too late now she is pregnant and has the baby. F 2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay there and help raise the child. The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands" forced to support women who don't want to work. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many *******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them, or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts children. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
I agree with what you are saying but my point was only in extreme cases.
1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. Too late, the baby is already born. Father will not take custody, will not shared parent and maybe even dissappears. Working mother with child turns to the state for help since can't make ends meet. The masses will in turn insist the government do something about it rather than pick up the tab. This is the only case where I believe at least some form of basic necessity support rather than let the taxpayers pick up the tab. But only if the father has the means to do so. If both do not have the means then ok taxpayers may need to pick up the tab. Although I do believe more can be done with national charities with government oversight and promotion. Bottomline support only where the working father does not want the child and the working mother cannot support herself. Also if you cannot afford to care for the child you give up custody to the parent that can care for the child. If the other parent is unwilling then the taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab and hence basic support. I agree with your points in most cases except where the father wants nothing to do with the child and the working mother cannot support herself. Unfortunately your views are extreme in our feminist society and therefore unlikely any politician will take on your cause. Shared parenting is at least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is for all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring things back to somewhere in the middle. "Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century. The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best, and always has. Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable outcome. MEN ought to reject the feminazi concept of "shared parenting" and do so for the sake of our children. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? 1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children like that. Too late now she is pregnant and has the baby. F 2. For millions of years women have been bringing children to their fathers. She damn well ought to do so. And she ought to offer to stay there and help raise the child. The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. Another feminist program, force the taxpayers into alternate "husbands" forced to support women who don't want to work. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. Far too many women believe the cow**** of their "right" to whelp as many *******s as they like and have the taxpayer be forced to support them, or bind the man into slavery to support them. It's a system that hurts children. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
"Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century. The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best, and always has. Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable outcome. Ok, Bob, you knew someone was going to ask, so I'm asking. Where are the studies showing this? And I do mean studies, not opinions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It's Not About Kids, It's About Women's Choices | GudGye11 | Child Support | 3 | March 19th 04 05:10 AM |
Lookin' For Women's Input . . . | Bob Whiteside | Child Support | 90 | September 8th 03 05:32 AM |