Penalty for being single

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:iKkrb.10321$0K6.1443@fed1read06...
Legally, a man married to the mother of his biological children doesn't
have
to give her one red cent. Yet, as soon as she divorces him, he suddenly
owes
her heaping sums of cash. Why?

It's simple Chris, you know it. There's a need to provide support for
those
weaker than the big bad man.

The thing that really needs to be considered is that while money goes to
the
woman after a divorce there are two reasons which really need to be
separated. The woman who received Alimony because she's become accustomed
to
a "way of life" is not much more than a leech. I can accept the idea that
a
woman, removed from the work force may need time and support to re-adjust
to
being employed, but long-term/permanent support is a joke.

The other sort of support is child support and while there's a real need
to
ensure children are cared for, financially and otherwise, the dollar value
that is awarded is often higher than the true costs of child rearing.
Sure,
many men feel that this responsibility is thrust upon them without choice
they seem to accept the risk of getting laid. Yes, there are methods to
prevent (reduce the probability of) pregnancy but these do not always
work.
The risk lies on the man because he can obstain as easily as the woman. I
realize that there are women that deceive their partner, claiming
sterility,
use of birth control, etc. but geez we (the guys) make a choice when we
"stick it in".

As does the woman who ends up getting raped when she chooses to use a
deserted laundromat late at night.


She should NOT receive "heaping sums of cash."

Judges that support claims for unrealistic sums of cash need to be brought
up to date.

Cameron

Snore..zzzzzzzzzz
"Chris" wrote in message
news:a_Drb.14524$0K6.11504@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:iKkrb.10321$0K6.1443@fed1read06...
Legally, a man married to the mother of his biological children
doesn't
have
to give her one red cent. Yet, as soon as she divorces him, he
suddenly
owes
her heaping sums of cash. Why?

It's simple Chris, you know it. There's a need to provide support for
those
weaker than the big bad man.

There is a need to provide support for those weaker, called children.

The thing that really needs to be considered is that while money goes
to
the
woman after a divorce there are two reasons which really need to be
separated. The woman who received Alimony because she's become
accustomed
to
a "way of life" is not much more than a leech. I can accept the idea
that
a
woman, removed from the work force may need time and support to
re-adjust
to
being employed, but long-term/permanent support is a joke.

Alimony is a different NG. This one, if im not mistaken is called Child
Support.

Also known as backdoor alimony.


The other sort of support is child support and while there's a real
need
to
ensure children are cared for, financially and otherwise, the dollar
value
that is awarded is often higher than the true costs of child rearing.

As ive asked this questions many many many many times, what does it cost
to
raise a child?

What does it cost to buy a car?

I have YET to see anything from the cronies in this group.
I have posted what the govt says it costs only to have it shot down with
"opinions" no hard facts.

Sure,
many men feel that this responsibility is thrust upon them without
choice
they seem to accept the risk of getting laid. Yes, there are methods
to
prevent (reduce the probability of) pregnancy but these do not always
work.
The risk lies on the man because he can obstain as easily as the
woman.
I
realize that there are women that deceive their partner, claiming
sterility,
use of birth control, etc. but geez we (the guys) make a choice when
we
"stick it in".

She should NOT receive "heaping sums of cash."

Most women dont receive "heaping sums of cash"

Irrelevant.



Judges that support claims for unrealistic sums of cash need to be
brought
up to date.

as do the cronies in this group.. what does it cost to raise a child?
Not
one of the cronies have give a figure so how can they claim that the
amount
of support is too high??

Cameron

You are just sick. NO Women deserves to get "raped" at any time. This must
be an alternate alias of the kandobagan (sp?) idiot.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:iKkrb.10321$0K6.1443@fed1read06...
Legally, a man married to the mother of his biological children
doesn't
have
to give her one red cent. Yet, as soon as she divorces him, he
suddenly
owes
her heaping sums of cash. Why?

It's simple Chris, you know it. There's a need to provide support for
those
weaker than the big bad man.

The thing that really needs to be considered is that while money goes to
the
woman after a divorce there are two reasons which really need to be
separated. The woman who received Alimony because she's become
accustomed
to
a "way of life" is not much more than a leech. I can accept the idea
that
a
woman, removed from the work force may need time and support to
re-adjust
to
being employed, but long-term/permanent support is a joke.

The other sort of support is child support and while there's a real need
to
ensure children are cared for, financially and otherwise, the dollar
value
that is awarded is often higher than the true costs of child rearing.
Sure,
many men feel that this responsibility is thrust upon them without
choice
they seem to accept the risk of getting laid. Yes, there are methods to
prevent (reduce the probability of) pregnancy but these do not always
work.
The risk lies on the man because he can obstain as easily as the woman.
I
realize that there are women that deceive their partner, claiming
sterility,
use of birth control, etc. but geez we (the guys) make a choice when we
"stick it in".

As does the woman who ends up getting raped when she chooses to use a
deserted laundromat late at night.


She should NOT receive "heaping sums of cash."

Judges that support claims for unrealistic sums of cash need to be
brought
up to date.

Cameron

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
You are just sick.

Thank you for your opinion.

NO Women deserves to get "raped" at any time.

But men deserve to get deceived and ripped off.

This must
be an alternate alias of the kandobagan (sp?) idiot.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:iKkrb.10321$0K6.1443@fed1read06...
Legally, a man married to the mother of his biological children
doesn't
have
to give her one red cent. Yet, as soon as she divorces him, he
suddenly
owes
her heaping sums of cash. Why?

It's simple Chris, you know it. There's a need to provide support for
those
weaker than the big bad man.

The thing that really needs to be considered is that while money goes
to
the
woman after a divorce there are two reasons which really need to be
separated. The woman who received Alimony because she's become
accustomed
to
a "way of life" is not much more than a leech. I can accept the idea
that
a
woman, removed from the work force may need time and support to
re-adjust
to
being employed, but long-term/permanent support is a joke.

The other sort of support is child support and while there's a real
need
to
ensure children are cared for, financially and otherwise, the dollar
value
that is awarded is often higher than the true costs of child rearing.
Sure,
many men feel that this responsibility is thrust upon them without
choice
they seem to accept the risk of getting laid. Yes, there are methods
to
prevent (reduce the probability of) pregnancy but these do not always
work.
The risk lies on the man because he can obstain as easily as the
woman.
I
realize that there are women that deceive their partner, claiming
sterility,
use of birth control, etc. but geez we (the guys) make a choice when
we
"stick it in".

As does the woman who ends up getting raped when she chooses to use a
deserted laundromat late at night.


She should NOT receive "heaping sums of cash."

Judges that support claims for unrealistic sums of cash need to be
brought
up to date.

Cameron

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
The other sort of support is child support and while there's a real
need
to
ensure children are cared for, financially and otherwise, the dollar
value
that is awarded is often higher than the true costs of child rearing.

As ive asked this questions many many many many times, what does it cost
to
raise a child? I have YET to see anything from the cronies in this
group.
I have posted what the govt says it costs only to have it shot down with
"opinions" no hard facts.

Good Question. In Canada the Foster Parent system pays $15-26/day
(~$456-790/month). Not all NCPs can afford this but we can presume to some
extent that these amounts (the range) that this would be a fair amount of
support to "cover costs". I'm paying a reasonable amount right now, plus a
portion of daycare that was.

Sure,
many men feel that this responsibility is thrust upon them without
choice
they seem to accept the risk of getting laid. Yes, there are methods
to
prevent (reduce the probability of) pregnancy but these do not always
work.
The risk lies on the man because he can obstain as easily as the
woman.
I
realize that there are women that deceive their partner, claiming
sterility,
use of birth control, etc. but geez we (the guys) make a choice when
we
"stick it in".

She should NOT receive "heaping sums of cash."

Most women dont receive "heaping sums of cash"

Never suggested most DID. I don't know quantifiably how many were given a
huge chunk of money. The division of assets is not what I consider a huge
sum, it's the division of assets.

Judges that support claims for unrealistic sums of cash need to be
brought
up to date.

as do the cronies in this group.. what does it cost to raise a child?
Not
one of the cronies have give a figure so how can they claim that the
amount
of support is too high??

In all fairness the people in this group, on either side of the arguement,
are as much a part of the problem as they are the victims. Sure there's
radicals and exceptions but these people have been trampled by the system
and the system, doesn't give a hoot about anyone. These cronies are
reacting
to an opressive, guilty no matter how innocent, process. Due process does
not exist and the lawyers and judges live the good life while those that
can
still afford it try to fight the system's tidal wave of punishments.

GUILTY, until proven innocent. If you are a man that is; especially a WHITE
man !


Cameron

Fighting for kids wrote:
What are you smoking again? You off in your own little world or what?

Do you get these laws from your own planet or what?

Instead of the ad hominem attack, why not something substantial to
disprove his claims?

Rape is something completely different than what we are talking about.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:30:37 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
You are just sick.

Thank you for your opinion.

NO Women deserves to get "raped" at any time.

But men deserve to get deceived and ripped off.

This must
be an alternate alias of the kandobagan (sp?) idiot.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:iKkrb.10321$0K6.1443@fed1read06...
Legally, a man married to the mother of his biological children
doesn't
have
to give her one red cent. Yet, as soon as she divorces him, he
suddenly
owes
her heaping sums of cash. Why?

It's simple Chris, you know it. There's a need to provide support for
those
weaker than the big bad man.

The thing that really needs to be considered is that while money goes
to
the
woman after a divorce there are two reasons which really need to be
separated. The woman who received Alimony because she's become
accustomed
to
a "way of life" is not much more than a leech. I can accept the idea
that
a
woman, removed from the work force may need time and support to
re-adjust
to
being employed, but long-term/permanent support is a joke.

The other sort of support is child support and while there's a real
need
to
ensure children are cared for, financially and otherwise, the dollar
value
that is awarded is often higher than the true costs of child rearing.
Sure,
many men feel that this responsibility is thrust upon them without
choice
they seem to accept the risk of getting laid. Yes, there are methods
to
prevent (reduce the probability of) pregnancy but these do not always
work.
The risk lies on the man because he can obstain as easily as the
woman.
I
realize that there are women that deceive their partner, claiming
sterility,
use of birth control, etc. but geez we (the guys) make a choice when
we
"stick it in".

As does the woman who ends up getting raped when she chooses to use a
deserted laundromat late at night.


She should NOT receive "heaping sums of cash."

Judges that support claims for unrealistic sums of cash need to be
brought
up to date.

Cameron

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Fighting for kids wrote:
What are you smoking again? You off in your own little world or what?

Do you get these laws from your own planet or what?

Instead of the ad hominem attack, why not something substantial to
disprove his claims?
====
She can't comprehend his claims. She lacks the required mental/auditory
processing skills.
Her brain operates as if it were in the middle lane of a freeway with cars
speeding past her in the
neighboring lanes. She doesn't have the mental ability to merge into their
lanes and is constantly
threatened by what appears to her as their excessive speed. Because she
can't join them, her only defense
is to try to eliminate them. When that is unsuccessful, she panics and
lashes out at them in any way she can,
flailing in all directions until she becomes so exhausted she collapses.
(She then changes her user ID trying to disguise herself so she can begin
the attack again .
====
====

Gini you MUST stop talking about yourself its totally unecessary.



On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:16:43 -0500, "Gini" wrote:


"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Fighting for kids wrote:
What are you smoking again? You off in your own little world or what?

Do you get these laws from your own planet or what?

Instead of the ad hominem attack, why not something substantial to
disprove his claims?
====
She can't comprehend his claims. She lacks the required mental/auditory
processing skills.

No I refuse to accept things that are based soley on someone's opinon.


Her brain operates as if it were in the middle lane of a freeway with cars
speeding past her in the
neighboring lanes. She doesn't have the mental ability to merge into their
lanes and is constantly
threatened by what appears to her as their excessive speed.

Really that's funny, I seem to see it more like a swarm of cronies
surrounding and attacking someone who has opposing views.


Because she
can't join them, her only defense
is to try to eliminate them.

Gini, this is what I orginally posted about you. It seems to me that
you are the one threatened and cant even come up with your own posts
or thoughts.

When that is unsuccessful, she panics and
lashes out at them in any way she can,
flailing in all directions until she becomes so exhausted she collapses.

Exhausted? Hardly, the more you talk the stupidier you sound..


(She then changes her user ID trying to disguise herself so she can begin
the attack again .

If I was really smart I would mask my IP Address and use different
ISP's to connect and post messages. Im not trying to hide anything.

I think you have that backwards, the only ones "attacking" here are
you and your cronies. One against 10+ ?? Show's just how
threatened you all are.

====
====

This is coming from someone who cant even post his own thoughts and
only is the messenger of someone else's words and thoughts.

This is ssoooooo funny. You guys have just taken exactly what ive
said directly at Gini and turned it around as your own words and
posts!!!



On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:42:00 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
wrote:


"Gini" wrote in message
...

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Fighting for kids wrote:
What are you smoking again? You off in your own little world or what?

Do you get these laws from your own planet or what?

Instead of the ad hominem attack, why not something substantial to
disprove his claims?
====
She can't comprehend his claims. She lacks the required mental/auditory
processing skills.
Her brain operates as if it were in the middle lane of a freeway with cars
speeding past her in the
neighboring lanes. She doesn't have the mental ability to merge into their
lanes and is constantly
threatened by what appears to her as their excessive speed. Because she
can't join them, her only defense
is to try to eliminate them. When that is unsuccessful, she panics and
lashes out at them in any way she can,
flailing in all directions until she becomes so exhausted she collapses.
(She then changes her user ID trying to disguise herself so she can begin
the attack again .
====

LMAO.......you hit the nail on the head.

====