"DVD" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

"DVD" wrote in message
...

Phil wrote:


"DVD" wrote in message
.. .


teachrmama wrote:



"Phil" wrote in message
...



"DVD" wrote in message
m...



Chris wrote:

[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]

Okay, what about a guy who is in prison running hookers and selling
meth to other innmates? He can easily afford to support a child with
his meth and hooker earnings, but can he really take custody of the
child?

Supporting a child is more than money. I think that is the problem
here. You seem to equate money as the cure for all ills and the
answer to all problems.
Supporting children means so much more than paying money to someone
who may or may not use it for the children. "Support" means kissing
boo-boos, explaining homework problems, educating on morals, assuring
a teen that acne is not the end of the world, teaching how to drive
and why money can not buy happiness.


What's interesting is that, when he tells all the things he
(supposedly) does for his (supposed) children, these are the sorts of
things he talks about. But when he talks about other men's children,
all he can talk about is money.

He lies, you join in and swear to what he says. You are the most
dishonest group of people I have ever seen.


You use your own prejudice as you sole proof of our "lies" and claim to
have knowledge gained from one article in a newspaper that you cannot
produce.
Hmmmmmmm.
Ya caught us, alright.
Phil#3



In this tangent I am responding to 3 specific posts, mine and your 2
dishonest interpretations of what my post said. You have ignored the
truth and gone onto 2 more tangents. Think I have no basis for thinking
your side of a story is not the whole story?


Anything you don't care to (or are unable to) respond to is either a
tangent or a strawman. snicker

Read the first post and then try to follow the rest as if you had an
honest thought in your head. 2 posts in a row were just blatantly
dishonest, since then you are just swearing to each other's dishonesty.

Why? because you lay out your trail of cracker crumbs, and we don't follow
along properly? We are discussing the ramifications of the biased system
that we, ourselves, have experienced, but you think we should pant along in
your wake. You seem incapable of understanding that the system that *we
have experienced for many, many years* is not the idyllic system that you
see as existing. You consider us dishonest because **we don't agree with
you***--and for no other reason.

BTW, when are you going to post that NY TIMES cite?