Penalty for being single

[Chris]

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?

[Fighting for kids]

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?

"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?
>
>

[Chris]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> 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?

No, no, and no. Next.

>
> "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?
> >
> >
>
>

[Dusty]

Because it's been established by fascist feminists groups that women are
weak and can't do anything for themselves. They've been granted victim
status by the government and therefore can do no wrong. It's a form of
entitlement.

Divorce your husband and you're instantly entitled to anything you want,
while he has to pay for it.

"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?
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

Divorce you husband because he's an idiot.

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
> Because it's been established by fascist feminists groups that women are
> weak and can't do anything for themselves. They've been granted victim
> status by the government and therefore can do no wrong. It's a form of
> entitlement.
>
> Divorce your husband and you're instantly entitled to anything you want,
> while he has to pay for it.
>
> "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?
> >
> >
>
>

[Cameron Stevens]

"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".

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]

"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.
>
> 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.

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"

>
> 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
>
>

[Chris]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Divorce you husband because he's an idiot.

Non sequitur.

>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> > Because it's been established by fascist feminists groups that women are
> > weak and can't do anything for themselves. They've been granted victim
> > status by the government and therefore can do no wrong. It's a form of
> > entitlement.
> >
> > Divorce your husband and you're instantly entitled to anything you want,
> > while he has to pay for it.
> >
> > "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?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Cameron Stevens]

"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.

Cameron

[Chris]

"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
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"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]

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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

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
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"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
>
>

[The Dave©]

> 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?

[[email protected]]

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
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Gini]

"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 :).
====
====

[Fighting For Kids]

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.

>====
>====
>

[Fighting For Kids]

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.
>
>> ====
>>
>>
>

[Chris]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Rape is something completely different than what we are talking about.

I see.... "that's different".

>
> 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
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Paul Fritz]

"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.

> ====
>
>

[The Dave©]

> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> 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!!!

Are you my ex-wife? She's psychotic, too.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:55:31 GMT, The Dave© > wrote:

>> Fighting For Kids wrote:
>> 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!!!
>
>Are you my ex-wife? She's psychotic, too.

No thank god.

[Freedom]

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

If you are working, it doesn't cost much as you need a little extra food at
the table (actually you could even cut back a bit on your own portions w/o
demise), because you already have housing for yourself. Next is
transportation (after housing and food), if you already have a car and are
working you don't need another one, especially since children usually use
the bus for school.

But if you need facts, look here:
http://www.ancpr.org/cost_of_raising_a_child.htm or here:
http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/using2.html but beware they are skewed since they
are based on what "intact" families (sometimes two income) can afford for
housing for instance (for example a household with 120k of income can afford
a much bigger mortgage than a household of one with 60k) - but the
government in its wisdom economics says the child of this family is now
getting $xxx.xx for housing since he/she (child) is lucky recipient of these
two parent's who CHOOSE nice housing over other things in their lives.

> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting For Kids
says...
>
>
>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.
====
I really can't imagine how I survived here all these years without you to guide
my thoughts. Note to lurkers/readers: If you've ever gotten advice from me,
ditch it and follow what's-her-name (but use a spellchecker).
(Cameron--*That* is sarcasm--but, not the part about the spellchecker ;-)
===
===

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting For Kids
says...
>
>
>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!!!
=====
Yeah, you got us pegged alright. It's a losing battle. We simply can't keep up
with your brilliance.
====
====
>

[Paul Fritz]

Well.......she ain't baffling us with her bull****

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Fighting For Kids
> says...
> >
> >
> >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!!!
> =====
> Yeah, you got us pegged alright. It's a losing battle. We simply can't
keep up
> with your brilliance.
> ====
> ====
> >
>

[Paul Fritz]

"Freedom" > wrote in message
...
> >As ive asked this questions many many many many times, what does it cost
> >to raise a child?
>
> If you are working, it doesn't cost much as you need a little extra food
at
> the table (actually you could even cut back a bit on your own portions w/o
> demise), because you already have housing for yourself. Next is
> transportation (after housing and food), if you already have a car and are
> working you don't need another one, especially since children usually use
> the bus for school.

Average CS award $733 NCP portion only
Foster care 358
Welfare (Mi) 439 (Mother and 2 kids)
Welfare (San Diego) 900 (Mother and 4 kids)
1997 adult Poverty 657
1997 Child Poverty 221
SS Adult Disabilty 470




>
> But if you need facts, look here:
> http://www.ancpr.org/cost_of_raising_a_child.htm or here:
> http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/using2.html but beware they are skewed since they
> are based on what "intact" families (sometimes two income) can afford for
> housing for instance (for example a household with 120k of income can
afford
> a much bigger mortgage than a household of one with 60k) - but the
> government in its wisdom economics says the child of this family is now
> getting $xxx.xx for housing since he/she (child) is lucky recipient of
these
> two parent's who CHOOSE nice housing over other things in their lives.
>
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Cameron Stevens]

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

> > 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.

That's a very different scenario. Besides the man will never pay even if
convicted.

What's scary is the endless collection of women on the Maury Povich show who
have no clue who they've been with. MoPo gets behind them and helps them
seek support! Fair enough, support is necessary but does dear old Maury ever
take these dumb-ass women to task for being a slut?

Cameron

BTW: It just came on and will fuel my arguments for an hour.

[Fighting For Kids]

The only bull**** is the stuff that comes out of your mouth!!!

BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS



On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:16:54 -0500, "Paul Fritz"
> wrote:

>Well.......she ain't baffling us with her bull****
>
>"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Fighting For Kids
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> >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!!!
>> =====
>> Yeah, you got us pegged alright. It's a losing battle. We simply can't
>keep up
>> with your brilliance.
>> ====
>> ====
>> >
>>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Yeah, and lets look at the men in those shows.

When asked, how many kids do you have ??

They usually reply anywhere from 3-5.

Can we say "man whore."


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:02:35 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> wrote:

>
>"Chris" > wrote in message
>news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...
>
>> > 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.
>
>That's a very different scenario. Besides the man will never pay even if
>convicted.
>
>What's scary is the endless collection of women on the Maury Povich show who
>have no clue who they've been with. MoPo gets behind them and helps them
>seek support! Fair enough, support is necessary but does dear old Maury ever
>take these dumb-ass women to task for being a slut?
>
>Cameron
>
>BTW: It just came on and will fuel my arguments for an hour.
>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, and lets look at the men in those shows.
>
> When asked, how many kids do you have ??
>
> They usually reply anywhere from 3-5.
>
> Can we say "man whore."

Being that he is NOT getting paid for sex, unlike the woman, he cannot be a
whore.

>
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:02:35 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris" > wrote in message
> >news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...
> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> >That's a very different scenario. Besides the man will never pay even if
> >convicted.
> >
> >What's scary is the endless collection of women on the Maury Povich show
who
> >have no clue who they've been with. MoPo gets behind them and helps them
> >seek support! Fair enough, support is necessary but does dear old Maury
ever
> >take these dumb-ass women to task for being a slut?
> >
> >Cameron
> >
> >BTW: It just came on and will fuel my arguments for an hour.
> >
>

[Fighting For Kids]

If a woman sleeps around she is slut.
If a man sleeps around he is a man whore.


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:51:19 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> Yeah, and lets look at the men in those shows.
>>
>> When asked, how many kids do you have ??
>>
>> They usually reply anywhere from 3-5.
>>
>> Can we say "man whore."
>
>Being that he is NOT getting paid for sex, unlike the woman, he cannot be a
>whore.
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:02:35 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Chris" > wrote in message
>> >news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...
>> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> >That's a very different scenario. Besides the man will never pay even if
>> >convicted.
>> >
>> >What's scary is the endless collection of women on the Maury Povich show
>who
>> >have no clue who they've been with. MoPo gets behind them and helps them
>> >seek support! Fair enough, support is necessary but does dear old Maury
>ever
>> >take these dumb-ass women to task for being a slut?
>> >
>> >Cameron
>> >
>> >BTW: It just came on and will fuel my arguments for an hour.
>> >
>>
>

[The Dave©]

> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> The only bull**** is the stuff that comes out of your mouth!!!
>
> BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS

Now, there's and intelligent and mature response.

[Fighting For Kids]

Like you have done any better


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:17:29 GMT, "The Dave©" > wrote:

>> Fighting For Kids wrote:
>> The only bull**** is the stuff that comes out of your mouth!!!
>>
>> BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS
>
>Now, there's and intelligent and mature response.

[Paul Fritz]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Fighting For Kids wrote:
> > The only bull**** is the stuff that comes out of your mouth!!!
> >
> > BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS
>
> Now, there's and intelligent and mature response.

Cut "stealing for mommie" some slack, that is the best it could muster in
days. LMAO

[TeacherMama]

I think everyone involved in those paternity shows of Maury's are
lacking judgement. First, why would anyone want to go throught the
public humiliation of admitting that they had no clue who their
child's father was/whether they fathered a child? Second, how can
they come back again and again with new lists of possibles to check
out? I wonder how much they are paid to do this.


Fighting For Kids > wrote in message >...
> Yeah, and lets look at the men in those shows.
>
> When asked, how many kids do you have ??
>
> They usually reply anywhere from 3-5.
>
> Can we say "man whore."
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:02:35 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris" > wrote in message
> >news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...
> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> >That's a very different scenario. Besides the man will never pay even if
> >convicted.
> >
> >What's scary is the endless collection of women on the Maury Povich show who
> >have no clue who they've been with. MoPo gets behind them and helps them
> >seek support! Fair enough, support is necessary but does dear old Maury ever
> >take these dumb-ass women to task for being a slut?
> >
> >Cameron
> >
> >BTW: It just came on and will fuel my arguments for an hour.
> >

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
om...
> I think everyone involved in those paternity shows of Maury's are
> lacking judgement. First, why would anyone want to go throught the
> public humiliation of admitting that they had no clue who their
> child's father was/whether they fathered a child? Second, how can
> they come back again and again with new lists of possibles to check
> out? I wonder how much they are paid to do this.

I rarely watch Maury. But every time I hear his name it reminds me of one
show I saw. This white woman with a blue eyed, blond haired, white baby was
claiming this black former boyfriend was the child's father. The guy
pointed out his skin was brown, his eyes were brown, his hair was brown,
every thing about his body was brown, and there was nothing brown on the
child, so there was no way he was the child's father.

When the paternity test came back showing he was 100% excluded from being
the child's father, the woman and her mother went ballistic claiming the
test had to be wrong. Maury suggested they come up with a list of other
possible fathers for them to test. They both insisted there were no other
men to test. I came to the conclusion this woman got humiliated on national
TV for sleeping around on her former boyfriend. What a circus!

[The Dave©]

> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> Like you have done any better

I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.

[Freedom]

Where did you get those facts? That would be interesting to see.


"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Freedom" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >As ive asked this questions many many many many times, what does it
cost
> > >to raise a child?
> >
> > If you are working, it doesn't cost much as you need a little extra food
> at
> > the table (actually you could even cut back a bit on your own portions
w/o
> > demise), because you already have housing for yourself. Next is
> > transportation (after housing and food), if you already have a car and
are
> > working you don't need another one, especially since children usually
use
> > the bus for school.
>
> Average CS award $733 NCP portion only
> Foster care 358
> Welfare (Mi) 439 (Mother and 2 kids)
> Welfare (San Diego) 900 (Mother and 4 kids)
> 1997 adult Poverty 657
> 1997 Child Poverty 221
> SS Adult Disabilty 470
>
>
>
>
> >
> > But if you need facts, look here:
> > http://www.ancpr.org/cost_of_raising_a_child.htm or here:
> > http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/using2.html but beware they are skewed since
they
> > are based on what "intact" families (sometimes two income) can afford
for
> > housing for instance (for example a household with 120k of income can
> afford
> > a much bigger mortgage than a household of one with 60k) - but the
> > government in its wisdom economics says the child of this family is now
> > getting $xxx.xx for housing since he/she (child) is lucky recipient of
> these
> > two parent's who CHOOSE nice housing over other things in their lives.
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

http://www.ancpr.org/hr5.htm

"Freedom" > wrote in message
...
> Where did you get those facts? That would be interesting to see.
>
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Freedom" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >As ive asked this questions many many many many times, what does it
> cost
> > > >to raise a child?
> > >
> > > If you are working, it doesn't cost much as you need a little extra
food
> > at
> > > the table (actually you could even cut back a bit on your own portions
> w/o
> > > demise), because you already have housing for yourself. Next is
> > > transportation (after housing and food), if you already have a car and
> are
> > > working you don't need another one, especially since children usually
> use
> > > the bus for school.
> >
> > Average CS award $733 NCP portion only
> > Foster care 358
> > Welfare (Mi) 439 (Mother and 2 kids)
> > Welfare (San Diego) 900 (Mother and 4 kids)
> > 1997 adult Poverty 657
> > 1997 Child Poverty 221
> > SS Adult Disabilty 470
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But if you need facts, look here:
> > > http://www.ancpr.org/cost_of_raising_a_child.htm or here:
> > > http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/using2.html but beware they are skewed since
> they
> > > are based on what "intact" families (sometimes two income) can afford
> for
> > > housing for instance (for example a household with 120k of income can
> > afford
> > > a much bigger mortgage than a household of one with 60k) - but the
> > > government in its wisdom economics says the child of this family is
now
> > > getting $xxx.xx for housing since he/she (child) is lucky recipient of
> > these
> > > two parent's who CHOOSE nice housing over other things in their lives.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> If a woman sleeps around she is slut.
> If a man sleeps around he is a man whore.

Is this a new term, or something you just made up?

>
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:51:19 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Yeah, and lets look at the men in those shows.
> >>
> >> When asked, how many kids do you have ??
> >>
> >> They usually reply anywhere from 3-5.
> >>
> >> Can we say "man whore."
> >
> >Being that he is NOT getting paid for sex, unlike the woman, he cannot be
a
> >whore.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:02:35 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Chris" > wrote in message
> >> >news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...
> >> >
> >> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> >That's a very different scenario. Besides the man will never pay even
if
> >> >convicted.
> >> >
> >> >What's scary is the endless collection of women on the Maury Povich
show
> >who
> >> >have no clue who they've been with. MoPo gets behind them and helps
them
> >> >seek support! Fair enough, support is necessary but does dear old
Maury
> >ever
> >> >take these dumb-ass women to task for being a slut?
> >> >
> >> >Cameron
> >> >
> >> >BTW: It just came on and will fuel my arguments for an hour.
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Paul Fritz]

It's made up, just like everything else she has posted

"Chris" > wrote in message
news:KIisb.21817$0K6.15937@fed1read06...
>
> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If a woman sleeps around she is slut.
> > If a man sleeps around he is a man whore.
>
> Is this a new term, or something you just made up?
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:51:19 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Yeah, and lets look at the men in those shows.
> > >>
> > >> When asked, how many kids do you have ??
> > >>
> > >> They usually reply anywhere from 3-5.
> > >>
> > >> Can we say "man whore."
> > >
> > >Being that he is NOT getting paid for sex, unlike the woman, he cannot
be
> a
> > >whore.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:02:35 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >"Chris" > wrote in message
> > >> >news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...
> > >> >
> > >> >> > 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.
> > >> >
> > >> >That's a very different scenario. Besides the man will never pay
even
> if
> > >> >convicted.
> > >> >
> > >> >What's scary is the endless collection of women on the Maury Povich
> show
> > >who
> > >> >have no clue who they've been with. MoPo gets behind them and helps
> them
> > >> >seek support! Fair enough, support is necessary but does dear old
> Maury
> > >ever
> > >> >take these dumb-ass women to task for being a slut?
> > >> >
> > >> >Cameron
> > >> >
> > >> >BTW: It just came on and will fuel my arguments for an hour.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>

[Dusty]

Good Christmas, it's like talking to a whinny three year old whenever
FFK/SFM/None@ or whatever the hell she's calling herself this week. It's
enough to make you want to drink yourself stupid just so you can have a
semi-intelligent conversation with her!

Bloody hell is she a waste of time. And bandwidth (like she'd have a clue
what that is..).

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Fighting For Kids wrote:
> > > The only bull**** is the stuff that comes out of your mouth!!!
> > >
> > > BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS
> >
> > Now, there's and intelligent and mature response.
>
> Cut "stealing for mommie" some slack, that is the best it could muster in
> days. LMAO
>
>
>

[Melvin Gamble]

Looks like a tantrum coming on....

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:
>
> The only bull**** is the stuff that comes out of your mouth!!!
>
> BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:16:54 -0500, "Paul Fritz"
> > wrote:
>
> >Well.......she ain't baffling us with her bull****
> >
> >"Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, Fighting For Kids
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >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!!!
> >> =====
> >> Yeah, you got us pegged alright. It's a losing battle. We simply can't
> >keep up
> >> with your brilliance.
> >> ====
> >> ====
> >> >
> >>
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

Just look it up in your Fruitkake and Wagnell...

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:
>
> If a woman sleeps around she is slut.
> If a man sleeps around he is a man whore.
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:51:19 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Yeah, and lets look at the men in those shows.
> >>
> >> When asked, how many kids do you have ??
> >>
> >> They usually reply anywhere from 3-5.
> >>
> >> Can we say "man whore."
> >
> >Being that he is NOT getting paid for sex, unlike the woman, he cannot be a
> >whore.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:02:35 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Chris" > wrote in message
> >> >news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...
> >> >
> >> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> >That's a very different scenario. Besides the man will never pay even if
> >> >convicted.
> >> >
> >> >What's scary is the endless collection of women on the Maury Povich show
> >who
> >> >have no clue who they've been with. MoPo gets behind them and helps them
> >> >seek support! Fair enough, support is necessary but does dear old Maury
> >ever
> >> >take these dumb-ass women to task for being a slut?
> >> >
> >> >Cameron
> >> >
> >> >BTW: It just came on and will fuel my arguments for an hour.
> >> >
> >>
> >

[Dusty]

I agree it is a lot of fun to see her degenerate into a quivering mass of
inarticulate protoplasm.

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
> But it is comical to yank those strings and make her dance LOL
>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> > Good Christmas, it's like talking to a whinny three year old whenever
> > FFK/SFM/None@ or whatever the hell she's calling herself this week.
It's
> > enough to make you want to drink yourself stupid just so you can have a
> > semi-intelligent conversation with her!
> >
> > Bloody hell is she a waste of time. And bandwidth (like she'd have a
clue
> > what that is..).

[Dusty]

Yupper! She needs a spanking something fierce! A "time out" just won't do
it any more...

"Melvin Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Looks like a tantrum coming on....
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> >
> > The only bull**** is the stuff that comes out of your mouth!!!
> >
> > BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS

[Paul Fritz]

But it is comical to yank those strings and make her dance LOL

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
> Good Christmas, it's like talking to a whinny three year old whenever
> FFK/SFM/None@ or whatever the hell she's calling herself this week. It's
> enough to make you want to drink yourself stupid just so you can have a
> semi-intelligent conversation with her!
>
> Bloody hell is she a waste of time. And bandwidth (like she'd have a clue
> what that is..).
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Fighting For Kids wrote:
> > > > The only bull**** is the stuff that comes out of your mouth!!!
> > > >
> > > > BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS
> > >
> > > Now, there's and intelligent and mature response.
> >
> > Cut "stealing for mommie" some slack, that is the best it could muster
in
> > days. LMAO
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[AZ Astrea]

"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:70Erb.14530$0K6.70@fed1read06...
>
> > > 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.
>
> That's a very different scenario. Besides the man will never pay even if
> convicted.
>
> What's scary is the endless collection of women on the Maury Povich show
who
> have no clue who they've been with. MoPo gets behind them and helps them
> seek support! Fair enough, support is necessary but does dear old Maury
ever
> take these dumb-ass women to task for being a slut?
>
-----------------
I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts. I
can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying ,"You're
the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And then
the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well, so
maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she was
with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since I
didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord these
females give women a BAD name.

~AZ~

> Cameron
>
> BTW: It just came on and will fuel my arguments for an hour.
>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
wrote:


>-----------------
>I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts. I
>can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying ,"You're
>the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And then
>the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
>saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well, so
>maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she was
>with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
>might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since I
>didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord these
>females give women a BAD name.
>
>~AZ~
>


And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
exactly what?

[AZ Astrea]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >-----------------
> >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts.
I
> >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
,"You're
> >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
then
> >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
> >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well,
so
> >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she
was
> >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
> >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since
I
> >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
these
> >females give women a BAD name.
> >
> >~AZ~
> >
>
>
> And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
> exactly what?
-----------
Stupid. But are these 10 kids that they wanted to raise or are these kids
that they did not want? A man should be able to choose to not be a father
the same way that a mother can choose.

~AZ~

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >-----------------
> >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts.
I
> >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
,"You're
> >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
then
> >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
> >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well,
so
> >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she
was
> >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
> >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since
I
> >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
these
> >females give women a BAD name.
> >
> >~AZ~
> >
>
>
> And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
> exactly what?

Studs?

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:43:55 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>> And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
>> exactly what?
>
>Studs?
>

Chris,

I think you made a typo. That should be duds.

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:43:55 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >> And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
> >> exactly what?
> >
> >Studs?
> >
>
> Chris,
>
> I think you made a typo. That should be duds.

I must admit, that WAS pretty funny. :)

>

[TeacherMama]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message >...
> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >-----------------
> > >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts.
> I
> > >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
> ,"You're
> > >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
> then
> > >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
> > >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well,
> so
> > >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she
> was
> > >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
> > >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since
> I
> > >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
> these
> > >females give women a BAD name.
> > >
> > >~AZ~
> > >
> >
> >
> > And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
> > exactly what?
> -----------
> Stupid. But are these 10 kids that they wanted to raise or are these kids
> that they did not want? A man should be able to choose to not be a father
> the same way that a mother can choose.
>
> ~AZ~

As much as I agree that men and women should have equal rights in
deciding whether or not to be parents, I do not think that either
should have the right to create children who are destined to live in
poverty due to the self-centeredness of their parents. 10 children,
and no responsibility? Just walk away? Same with women. 7 children,
when she knew darn well she couldn't even support one? Outrageous!
And these children are taught to just belly up to the public trough
alongside their parents, with no consequence, no responsibility to the
parents who created them? We, the taxpayers, should be willing to
endlessly support the selfish choices of others? When do we balance
personal freedom with personal responsibility? When do we say "enough
is enough!"

[TeacherMama]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message >...
> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >-----------------
> > >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts.
> I
> > >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
> ,"You're
> > >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
> then
> > >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
> > >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well,
> so
> > >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she
> was
> > >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
> > >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since
> I
> > >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
> these
> > >females give women a BAD name.
> > >
> > >~AZ~
> > >
> >
> >
> > And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
> > exactly what?
> -----------
> Stupid. But are these 10 kids that they wanted to raise or are these kids
> that they did not want? A man should be able to choose to not be a father
> the same way that a mother can choose.
>
> ~AZ~

As much as I agree that men and women should have equal rights in
deciding whether or not to be parents, I do not think that either
should have the right to create children who are destined to live in
poverty due to the self-centeredness of their parents. 10 children,
and no responsibility? Just walk away? Same with women. 7 children,
when she knew darn well she couldn't even support one? Outrageous!
And these children are taught to just belly up to the public trough
alongside their parents, with no consequence, no responsibility to the
parents who created them? We, the taxpayers, should be willing to
endlessly support the selfish choices of others? When do we balance
personal freedom with personal responsibility? When do we say "enough
is enough!"

[Gini52]

In article >, TeacherMama
says...
>
>"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >-----------------
>> > >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts.
>> I
>> > >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
>> ,"You're
>> > >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
>> then
>> > >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
>> > >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well,
>> so
>> > >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she
>> was
>> > >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
>> > >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since
>> I
>> > >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
>> these
>> > >females give women a BAD name.
>> > >
>> > >~AZ~
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
>> > exactly what?
>> -----------
>> Stupid. But are these 10 kids that they wanted to raise or are these kids
>> that they did not want? A man should be able to choose to not be a father
>> the same way that a mother can choose.
>>
>> ~AZ~
>
>As much as I agree that men and women should have equal rights in
>deciding whether or not to be parents, I do not think that either
>should have the right to create children who are destined to live in
>poverty due to the self-centeredness of their parents. 10 children,
>and no responsibility? Just walk away? Same with women. 7 children,
>when she knew darn well she couldn't even support one? Outrageous!
>And these children are taught to just belly up to the public trough
>alongside their parents, with no consequence, no responsibility to the
>parents who created them? We, the taxpayers, should be willing to
>endlessly support the selfish choices of others? When do we balance
>personal freedom with personal responsibility? When do we say "enough
>is enough!"
=====
When we can outlaw stupidity?
====
====

[Gini52]

In article >, TeacherMama
says...
>
>"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >-----------------
>> > >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts.
>> I
>> > >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
>> ,"You're
>> > >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
>> then
>> > >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
>> > >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well,
>> so
>> > >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she
>> was
>> > >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
>> > >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since
>> I
>> > >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
>> these
>> > >females give women a BAD name.
>> > >
>> > >~AZ~
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
>> > exactly what?
>> -----------
>> Stupid. But are these 10 kids that they wanted to raise or are these kids
>> that they did not want? A man should be able to choose to not be a father
>> the same way that a mother can choose.
>>
>> ~AZ~
>
>As much as I agree that men and women should have equal rights in
>deciding whether or not to be parents, I do not think that either
>should have the right to create children who are destined to live in
>poverty due to the self-centeredness of their parents. 10 children,
>and no responsibility? Just walk away? Same with women. 7 children,
>when she knew darn well she couldn't even support one? Outrageous!
>And these children are taught to just belly up to the public trough
>alongside their parents, with no consequence, no responsibility to the
>parents who created them? We, the taxpayers, should be willing to
>endlessly support the selfish choices of others? When do we balance
>personal freedom with personal responsibility? When do we say "enough
>is enough!"
=====
When we can outlaw stupidity?
====
====

[TeacherMama]

Gini52 > wrote in message >...
> In article >, TeacherMama
> says...
> >
> >"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >-----------------
> >> > >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts.
> I
> >> > >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
> ,"You're
> >> > >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
> then
> >> > >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
> >> > >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well,
> so
> >> > >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she
> was
> >> > >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
> >> > >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since
> I
> >> > >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
> these
> >> > >females give women a BAD name.
> >> > >
> >> > >~AZ~
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
> >> > exactly what?
> >> -----------
> >> Stupid. But are these 10 kids that they wanted to raise or are these kids
> >> that they did not want? A man should be able to choose to not be a father
> >> the same way that a mother can choose.
> >>
> >> ~AZ~
> >
> >As much as I agree that men and women should have equal rights in
> >deciding whether or not to be parents, I do not think that either
> >should have the right to create children who are destined to live in
> >poverty due to the self-centeredness of their parents. 10 children,
> >and no responsibility? Just walk away? Same with women. 7 children,
> >when she knew darn well she couldn't even support one? Outrageous!
> >And these children are taught to just belly up to the public trough
> >alongside their parents, with no consequence, no responsibility to the
> >parents who created them? We, the taxpayers, should be willing to
> >endlessly support the selfish choices of others? When do we balance
> >personal freedom with personal responsibility? When do we say "enough
> >is enough!"
> =====
> When we can outlaw stupidity?
> ====
> ====

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.

[TeacherMama]

Gini52 > wrote in message >...
> In article >, TeacherMama
> says...
> >
> >"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >-----------------
> >> > >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass, sluts.
> I
> >> > >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
> ,"You're
> >> > >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
> then
> >> > >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts crying
> >> > >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!" Well,
> so
> >> > >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that she
> was
> >> > >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says, "It
> >> > >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and since
> I
> >> > >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
> these
> >> > >females give women a BAD name.
> >> > >
> >> > >~AZ~
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
> >> > exactly what?
> >> -----------
> >> Stupid. But are these 10 kids that they wanted to raise or are these kids
> >> that they did not want? A man should be able to choose to not be a father
> >> the same way that a mother can choose.
> >>
> >> ~AZ~
> >
> >As much as I agree that men and women should have equal rights in
> >deciding whether or not to be parents, I do not think that either
> >should have the right to create children who are destined to live in
> >poverty due to the self-centeredness of their parents. 10 children,
> >and no responsibility? Just walk away? Same with women. 7 children,
> >when she knew darn well she couldn't even support one? Outrageous!
> >And these children are taught to just belly up to the public trough
> >alongside their parents, with no consequence, no responsibility to the
> >parents who created them? We, the taxpayers, should be willing to
> >endlessly support the selfish choices of others? When do we balance
> >personal freedom with personal responsibility? When do we say "enough
> >is enough!"
> =====
> When we can outlaw stupidity?
> ====
> ====

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Nadacomin]

>Subject: Re: Penalty for being single

>From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
>Newsgroups: alt.child-support

Dave writes:

>> Fighting For Kids wrote:
>> Like you have done any better
>
>I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.

this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.

[Nadacomin]

>Subject: Re: Penalty for being single

>From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
>Newsgroups: alt.child-support

Dave writes:

>> Fighting For Kids wrote:
>> Like you have done any better
>
>I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.

this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.

[Tracy]

"Nadacomin" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Penalty for being single
>
> >From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
> >Newsgroups: alt.child-support
>
> Dave writes:
>
> >> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> >> Like you have done any better
> >
> >I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.
>
> this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.

I do believe "Fighting For Kids" was correct when she made the following
statement (I included your reply as well).

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
> > having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money hungary
> > whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.
>
> Please be specific about who called women those names. I don't recall
> reading any of those derrogatory terms here since you've been posting.
Sure
> there is an occassional radical nutcase who comes in here and uses those
> terms to describe women, but most of the men run them off for being
> offensive.

Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading. FFK has
been posting here for a short while, and the above comment made by
"Nadacomin" made its comment just this last Saturday.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"Nadacomin" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Penalty for being single
>
> >From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
> >Newsgroups: alt.child-support
>
> Dave writes:
>
> >> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> >> Like you have done any better
> >
> >I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.
>
> this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.

I do believe "Fighting For Kids" was correct when she made the following
statement (I included your reply as well).

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
> > having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money hungary
> > whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.
>
> Please be specific about who called women those names. I don't recall
> reading any of those derrogatory terms here since you've been posting.
Sure
> there is an occassional radical nutcase who comes in here and uses those
> terms to describe women, but most of the men run them off for being
> offensive.

Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading. FFK has
been posting here for a short while, and the above comment made by
"Nadacomin" made its comment just this last Saturday.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54...
> "Nadacomin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: Penalty for being single
> >
> > >From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
> > >Newsgroups: alt.child-support
> >
> > Dave writes:
> >
> > >> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> > >> Like you have done any better
> > >
> > >I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.
> >
> > this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.
>
> I do believe "Fighting For Kids" was correct when she made the following
> statement (I included your reply as well).
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> > > Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
> > > having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money hungary
> > > whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.
> >
> > Please be specific about who called women those names. I don't recall
> > reading any of those derrogatory terms here since you've been posting.
> Sure
> > there is an occassional radical nutcase who comes in here and uses those
> > terms to describe women, but most of the men run them off for being
> > offensive.
>
> Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading. FFK has
> been posting here for a short while, and the above comment made by
> "Nadacomin" made its comment just this last Saturday.

Nadacomin has posted here twice recently. If FFK thinks that person is a
regular poster she has no understanding of reality. That was my point -
some whacko's appear and take shots occasionally, but the regulars are
decent people who don't talk the way she tried to characterize us. The men
here don't use foul words to describe women.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54...
> "Nadacomin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: Penalty for being single
> >
> > >From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
> > >Newsgroups: alt.child-support
> >
> > Dave writes:
> >
> > >> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> > >> Like you have done any better
> > >
> > >I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.
> >
> > this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.
>
> I do believe "Fighting For Kids" was correct when she made the following
> statement (I included your reply as well).
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> > > Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
> > > having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money hungary
> > > whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.
> >
> > Please be specific about who called women those names. I don't recall
> > reading any of those derrogatory terms here since you've been posting.
> Sure
> > there is an occassional radical nutcase who comes in here and uses those
> > terms to describe women, but most of the men run them off for being
> > offensive.
>
> Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading. FFK has
> been posting here for a short while, and the above comment made by
> "Nadacomin" made its comment just this last Saturday.

Nadacomin has posted here twice recently. If FFK thinks that person is a
regular poster she has no understanding of reality. That was my point -
some whacko's appear and take shots occasionally, but the regulars are
decent people who don't talk the way she tried to characterize us. The men
here don't use foul words to describe women.

[Tracy]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54...
> > "Nadacomin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >Subject: Re: Penalty for being single
> > >
> > > >From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
> > > >Newsgroups: alt.child-support
> > >
> > > Dave writes:
> > >
> > > >> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> > > >> Like you have done any better
> > > >
> > > >I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.
> > >
> > > this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.
> >
> > I do believe "Fighting For Kids" was correct when she made the following
> > statement (I included your reply as well).
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
> > > > having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money
hungary
> > > > whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.
> > >
> > > Please be specific about who called women those names. I don't recall
> > > reading any of those derrogatory terms here since you've been posting.
> > Sure
> > > there is an occassional radical nutcase who comes in here and uses
those
> > > terms to describe women, but most of the men run them off for being
> > > offensive.
> >
> > Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading. FFK
has
> > been posting here for a short while, and the above comment made by
> > "Nadacomin" made its comment just this last Saturday.
>
> Nadacomin has posted here twice recently. If FFK thinks that person is a
> regular poster she has no understanding of reality. That was my point -
> some whacko's appear and take shots occasionally, but the regulars are
> decent people who don't talk the way she tried to characterize us. The
men
> here don't use foul words to describe women.


I could be wrong, but I do believe she didn't use the words "regular poster"
in her statement above. At times the overall tone in this group can
_suggest_ such harsh words. It isn't always necessary to read/hear them, to
know some have very harsh feelings towards women [in general], when you are
on the receiving end of the beating - and yes, most custodial mothers in
this group do receive a beating if they don't agree with the majority. The
majority at this time are NCPs, or wives of NCPs. It doesn't really matter
how "nice" the CP is either. It is one of the reasons why I haven't been
posting much. I'm personally tired of it, and I have many other things I
can be doing with my time.

I can go into details and show examples... but it isn't worth my time to do
so. I'm not expecting people to be nice, but I hope you understand what I'm
trying to say. It is enough to chase people away. I sure do miss the days
when this group was more of a group of people, more like friends, talking &
debating on the subject of child support. The balance is gone, and has been
for a long time.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54...
> > "Nadacomin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >Subject: Re: Penalty for being single
> > >
> > > >From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
> > > >Newsgroups: alt.child-support
> > >
> > > Dave writes:
> > >
> > > >> Fighting For Kids wrote:
> > > >> Like you have done any better
> > > >
> > > >I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.
> > >
> > > this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.
> >
> > I do believe "Fighting For Kids" was correct when she made the following
> > statement (I included your reply as well).
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
> > > > having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money
hungary
> > > > whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.
> > >
> > > Please be specific about who called women those names. I don't recall
> > > reading any of those derrogatory terms here since you've been posting.
> > Sure
> > > there is an occassional radical nutcase who comes in here and uses
those
> > > terms to describe women, but most of the men run them off for being
> > > offensive.
> >
> > Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading. FFK
has
> > been posting here for a short while, and the above comment made by
> > "Nadacomin" made its comment just this last Saturday.
>
> Nadacomin has posted here twice recently. If FFK thinks that person is a
> regular poster she has no understanding of reality. That was my point -
> some whacko's appear and take shots occasionally, but the regulars are
> decent people who don't talk the way she tried to characterize us. The
men
> here don't use foul words to describe women.


I could be wrong, but I do believe she didn't use the words "regular poster"
in her statement above. At times the overall tone in this group can
_suggest_ such harsh words. It isn't always necessary to read/hear them, to
know some have very harsh feelings towards women [in general], when you are
on the receiving end of the beating - and yes, most custodial mothers in
this group do receive a beating if they don't agree with the majority. The
majority at this time are NCPs, or wives of NCPs. It doesn't really matter
how "nice" the CP is either. It is one of the reasons why I haven't been
posting much. I'm personally tired of it, and I have many other things I
can be doing with my time.

I can go into details and show examples... but it isn't worth my time to do
so. I'm not expecting people to be nice, but I hope you understand what I'm
trying to say. It is enough to chase people away. I sure do miss the days
when this group was more of a group of people, more like friends, talking &
debating on the subject of child support. The balance is gone, and has been
for a long time.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Fighting For Kids]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:25:24 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:

>
>"Tracy" > wrote in message
>news:wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54...
>> "Nadacomin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >Subject: Re: Penalty for being single
>> >
>> > >From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
>> > >Newsgroups: alt.child-support
>> >
>> > Dave writes:
>> >
>> > >> Fighting For Kids wrote:
>> > >> Like you have done any better
>> > >
>> > >I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.
>> >
>> > this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.
>>
>> I do believe "Fighting For Kids" was correct when she made the following
>> statement (I included your reply as well).
>>
>> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >
>> > "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> > > Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
>> > > having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money hungary
>> > > whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.
>> >
>> > Please be specific about who called women those names. I don't recall
>> > reading any of those derrogatory terms here since you've been posting.
>> Sure
>> > there is an occassional radical nutcase who comes in here and uses those
>> > terms to describe women, but most of the men run them off for being
>> > offensive.
>>
>> Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading. FFK has
>> been posting here for a short while, and the above comment made by
>> "Nadacomin" made its comment just this last Saturday.
>
>Nadacomin has posted here twice recently. If FFK thinks that person is a
>regular poster she has no understanding of reality. That was my point -
>some whacko's appear and take shots occasionally, but the regulars are
>decent people who don't talk the way she tried to characterize us. The men
>here don't use foul words to describe women.

There have been other posters that still post that have made comments
about women. I think you just missed those bob
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:25:24 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:

>
>"Tracy" > wrote in message
>news:wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54...
>> "Nadacomin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >Subject: Re: Penalty for being single
>> >
>> > >From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=
>> > >Newsgroups: alt.child-support
>> >
>> > Dave writes:
>> >
>> > >> Fighting For Kids wrote:
>> > >> Like you have done any better
>> > >
>> > >I just love snappy comebacks. LOL.
>> >
>> > this is why, if you are smart, you never argue with ****s.
>>
>> I do believe "Fighting For Kids" was correct when she made the following
>> statement (I included your reply as well).
>>
>> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >
>> > "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> > > Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
>> > > having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money hungary
>> > > whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.
>> >
>> > Please be specific about who called women those names. I don't recall
>> > reading any of those derrogatory terms here since you've been posting.
>> Sure
>> > there is an occassional radical nutcase who comes in here and uses those
>> > terms to describe women, but most of the men run them off for being
>> > offensive.
>>
>> Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading. FFK has
>> been posting here for a short while, and the above comment made by
>> "Nadacomin" made its comment just this last Saturday.
>
>Nadacomin has posted here twice recently. If FFK thinks that person is a
>regular poster she has no understanding of reality. That was my point -
>some whacko's appear and take shots occasionally, but the regulars are
>decent people who don't talk the way she tried to characterize us. The men
>here don't use foul words to describe women.

There have been other posters that still post that have made comments
about women. I think you just missed those bob
>

[Gini52]

In article <wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54>, Tracy says...
.............................
>
>Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading.
.................
====
Sooo, what you're saying is that you have become a "lurker?"
Are you allowed to do that?
===
===
>
>
>Tracy
>~~~~~~~
>http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
>"You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
>*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>

[Gini52]

In article <wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54>, Tracy says...
.............................
>
>Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading.
.................
====
Sooo, what you're saying is that you have become a "lurker?"
Are you allowed to do that?
===
===
>
>
>Tracy
>~~~~~~~
>http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
>"You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
>*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>

[Tracy]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article <wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54>, Tracy says...
> ............................
> >
> >Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading.
> ................
> ====
> Sooo, what you're saying is that you have become a "lurker?"
> Are you allowed to do that?


When one is spending most of their time with someone else and only has time
to read, then yes. :)

On top of that, I still get into these "debates" over child support laws,
custody, and divorce issues. The only difference is now they're live. LOL


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article <wRhub.172364$mZ5.1220611@attbi_s54>, Tracy says...
> ............................
> >
> >Now I haven't been posting for a while, but I have been reading.
> ................
> ====
> Sooo, what you're saying is that you have become a "lurker?"
> Are you allowed to do that?


When one is spending most of their time with someone else and only has time
to read, then yes. :)

On top of that, I still get into these "debates" over child support laws,
custody, and divorce issues. The only difference is now they're live. LOL


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[AZ Astrea]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
om...
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >-----------------
> > > >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass,
sluts.
> > I
> > > >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
> > ,"You're
> > > >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
> > then
> > > >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts
crying
> > > >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!"
Well,
> > so
> > > >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that
she
> > was
> > > >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says,
"It
> > > >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and
since
> > I
> > > >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
> > these
> > > >females give women a BAD name.
> > > >
> > > >~AZ~
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
> > > exactly what?
> > -----------
> > Stupid. But are these 10 kids that they wanted to raise or are these
kids
> > that they did not want? A man should be able to choose to not be a
father
> > the same way that a mother can choose.
> >
> > ~AZ~
>
> As much as I agree that men and women should have equal rights in
> deciding whether or not to be parents, I do not think that either
> should have the right to create children who are destined to live in
> poverty due to the self-centeredness of their parents. 10 children,
> and no responsibility? Just walk away? Same with women. 7 children,
> when she knew darn well she couldn't even support one? Outrageous!
> And these children are taught to just belly up to the public trough
> alongside their parents, with no consequence, no responsibility to the
> parents who created them? We, the taxpayers, should be willing to
> endlessly support the selfish choices of others? When do we balance
> personal freedom with personal responsibility? When do we say "enough
> is enough!"
---------------------------
I soooo agree that people should not have kids they can't afford. Perhaps
if they can't afford them they should have to give them up for adoption?
This is not for the ones who find themselves in hard times, briefly needing
help but working toward self sufficiency.

~AZ~

[AZ Astrea]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
om...
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:36:59 -0700, "AZ Astrea" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >-----------------
> > > >I have always wanted to see him go off on some of those dumb-ass,
sluts.
> > I
> > > >can't believe how many times a woman gets up in a guys face saying
> > ,"You're
> > > >the baby-daddy! I haven't been with anyone else! yadda, yadda". And
> > then
> > > >the test comes back that he's not the father and the woman starts
crying
> > > >saying "He HAS to be the daddy! I was the virgin mary before him!"
Well,
> > so
> > > >maybe she doesn't say she was THE virgin mary but keeps denying that
she
> > was
> > > >with anyone else. Until she thinks about it for a minute and says,
"It
> > > >might have been that -------- guy, but I was only with him once and
since
> > I
> > > >didn't have a good time I didn't feel like we really had sex!" Lord
> > these
> > > >females give women a BAD name.
> > > >
> > > >~AZ~
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And the guys that come on and have 10 kids, or sleep around, etc are
> > > exactly what?
> > -----------
> > Stupid. But are these 10 kids that they wanted to raise or are these
kids
> > that they did not want? A man should be able to choose to not be a
father
> > the same way that a mother can choose.
> >
> > ~AZ~
>
> As much as I agree that men and women should have equal rights in
> deciding whether or not to be parents, I do not think that either
> should have the right to create children who are destined to live in
> poverty due to the self-centeredness of their parents. 10 children,
> and no responsibility? Just walk away? Same with women. 7 children,
> when she knew darn well she couldn't even support one? Outrageous!
> And these children are taught to just belly up to the public trough
> alongside their parents, with no consequence, no responsibility to the
> parents who created them? We, the taxpayers, should be willing to
> endlessly support the selfish choices of others? When do we balance
> personal freedom with personal responsibility? When do we say "enough
> is enough!"
---------------------------
I soooo agree that people should not have kids they can't afford. Perhaps
if they can't afford them they should have to give them up for adoption?
This is not for the ones who find themselves in hard times, briefly needing
help but working toward self sufficiency.

~AZ~