deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...

snip

But not because
I am a woman. If he *had* full custody,

"If" is a big word.


Well, you asked *if* I would be reasonable if the tables were
turned.
And I would be.

I never used the word "if" nor did I ask a question. Apparently,
the
phrase
"you would NOT be willing" created some confusion, perhaps I should
have
used the phrase "you ARE not willing".

What a foolish thing for you to say, Chris. You have no idea what she
would
or would not do. Like it or not, HE chose to move. And he seems to
have
been paying far less than the courts would have assigned him, so she
is
obviously not in it for "all she can get."

Nor did I say so. Additionally, I claimed what she is not willing to
do,
and
her statements SUPPORT my claim. That HE chose to move is irrelevant.

Again, you have absolutely no way of knowing what she would do were the
roles reversed. You are looking at things with a jaundiced view.


I would ask about expenses and
come up with an agreement that we *submitted* to the court,
instead
of
them using their formula - if only to ensure that payments are
recorded
as child support and not as "gifts". I have de facto primary
physical
custody because he left the state with less than a day's notice.
Do
you
suggest that I send her to live with him primarily, when he's
already
shown that he can't manage his money or a household?

I am suggesting that you practice what you preach. Being
equitable
means
that he is entitled to the SAME parental position as you. Did
that
answer
your question?


I should send her off hundreds of miles, after the school year has
started, to a man who cannot even budget $200 for groceries for a
few
weeks? Who has no plans to have his own apartment anytime soon?

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

No answer, huh? chuckle

That WAS an answer.
I responded to (in my mind) rhetorical questions. If they are actually
requests for advice, it is not my place to make such decisions for her;
thus
yes/no answers are inappropriate.



He LEFT.
If

There's that word again.

I had LEFT, I would not expect to retain primary physical custody.
The difference between he and I is that I would never put myself in
a
position where I would go three months without seeing my daughter.

Never say never.


(I haven't even
gotten into all of that.)
I don't want him to pay me for taking care of our child.

Yes you do.


No, I don't. I want him to contribute equally to the cost of
raising
her.

Correction: You want him to hand you FREE cash, plain and simple.

chuckle You are in rare form today, Chris.



I want him to
contribute an equal share towards food, shelter, clothing,
latchkey.

Great! Then allow him to provide such things just like YOU do.
[note: if fathers are EQUAL parents to mothers, then why is it
that
fathers
need the permission of mothers regarding any interaction with
their
children?]


I gave him a detailed accounting of costs for raising our daughter
and
asked him to contribute half. He told me to take him to court. So I
am.
(We are talking about a matter of an extra $175 a month from what
he
is
paying now, He lives with his parents and has few expenses.)
He doesn't need my *permission* to see our daughter,

Yes he does, because without it he cannot see her.

but considering he
has moved out of state, obviously, he needs to work around *her*
schedule.

Correction: YOUR schedule.

No, Chris, the child's schedule.

Sorry, but children don't make the schedule; unless they have a fool
for
a
parent.

Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in disbeleif at in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them next to
nothing because they were so disagreeable. It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Nonsense! Unless, of course, "father's rights" consist of fathers just
laying down and agreeing to lies!





She can't go to school half the year in one place and half the
year at another,

Yes she can.

And how would that affect her education? Or is her education
secondary
to
making sure that your personal interpretation of fair is put into
effect?
You are just as unreasonable as those who feel that moms should get
100%
custody and an outrageous chunk of cash every month!

Ya know something, you're right. Gee, how could I have been so absent
minded
to think that somehow a relationship with one's father trumps the crap
they
teach in today's schools!

Oh--crap like reading and math? Things needed to succeed in the world
today? Unless, of course, you feel that learning to read is
umimportant.
And why should the child be pulled away from her education in order that
a
relationship be fostered with a man who CHOSE TO MOVE AWAY FROM HER?

By the way, I NEVER projected any "personal interpretation" of what's
fair
in this matter. But I DO know that 2+2=4. Always has, does now, and
ALWAYS
will.

And how about 3-1, Chris? Seems like it more accurately represents the
situation under discussion here.

Chris wrote:
Why is the DBP crew in every group, discussion, topic, and thread when it is
about child support? Is it possible for them to gripe anymore about something
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
focus that anger on. I'm not saying that you are one such person, but just in
case, I'd sooner avoid confrontation with you.

Translation: I prefer NOT to argue with those who challenge my false claims.

That comment about it being the sole choice of the mother is original.
Usually when a husband and wife have a child it is a mutual decision,

Untrue. The pregnant woman is the FINAL, thus SOLE arbiter whether or not to
create the child (give birth). If you don't believe that, then present a
case where a man has the RIGHT to force a woman to bear a child.

and the
husband is not usually forced to have sex.

Irrelevant.
I a m n o t g o i n g t o a r g u e w i t h y o u b e c a u s e I d o n ' t l
i k e t o w a s t e m y t i m e o n p e o p l e w i t h i s s u e s o t h e
r t h a n n o r m a l.

The pregnant woman is the FINAL, thus SOLE arbiter whether or not to create
the child (give birth).

Everyone is entitled to have a thought and share it. You did, I saw it, but I
don't agree. I will most likely never agree with that particular opinion of
your's, so I'm not going to linger on it. If you want to linger, go to town
with it. I just don't agree and nothing you say is going to make me agree
with you.

It's not to be rude, or to offend you, I just don't agree. Can we leave it
alone now, or do I KF you?

--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
Chris wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Chris" wrote in message
...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
snip for length

Unless you feel that school is optional.
School IS optional.
She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if her
parents
want her to be successful at school.
...AND want her in in such traditional setting. Nonetheless, it is the
mother, NOT any calendar that determines her schedule.
And you are saying wnat? That parents should pull their children out
of
school for......? what reasons?

I am saying nothing more than it is the mother who makes any
schedule............... always. I make no recommendation about the
issue of
schooling. That is a decision rightfully left to the parent (mother).


In this particular case, she is *already* in school. Why should I send
her to Nashville?

Since Nashville has no schools, I just can't come up with a SINLGE reason
why. Guess ya got me.

Her father does not have plans for his own apartment
or house any time soon.

She can't go to school half the year in one place and half the
year at another,
Yes she can.
And how would that affect her education? Or is her education
secondary
to
making sure that your personal interpretation of fair is put into
effect?
You are just as unreasonable as those who feel that moms should get
100%
custody and an outrageous chunk of cash every month!
Ya know something, you're right. Gee, how could I have been so
absent
minded
to think that somehow a relationship with one's father trumps the
crap
they
teach in today's schools!
Oh--crap like reading and math? Things needed to succeed in the
world
today?
No. Crap like homosexuality is a preferred way of life, and the
government
people know what's best for you. Crap like handing out condoms to
children
WITH instruction on use. Crap like secret abortion for children on
demand.....
Big time in the news, but certainly not done everywhere, Chris.

Perhaps. But tell me that attending school trumps having a relationship
with
one's father, and then I will know just where you stand. Of course,
everyone
knows that being with a father AND attending school cannot coexist.


No, not if said father moves an 8 hour's drive away.

Because?


Unless, of course, you feel that learning to read is umimportant.
And why should the child be pulled away from her education in order
that
a
relationship be fostered with a man who CHOSE TO MOVE AWAY FROM HER?
Correction: The man chose to move away from where he was living. You
don't
think for a SECOND that the mother would allow her daughter to move
too,
do
you?
Why would she.

She shouldn't because SHE is the boss and SHE calls the shots. EVERYONE
knows this is true about mothers.

HE chose to move. HIM--he disrupted the arrangements that
had been made--we don't know why--

Perhaps such "arrangements" were inferior in his mind. Oh yeah, I
forgot,
ONLY the mother's opinion on what the best arrangement is counts.

but SHE did not send him away--HE MOVED!

Uhuh. So tell me, what ususally (almost ALWAYS) happens when the mother
moves?


I don't know what always *happens*,

Don't give me that crap. Unless you live in a vacuum or are completely
ignorant (same thing?), you know EXACTLY what happens!

but I know that in my state, at
least, custodial parents are not allowed to move 100 miles either unless
it's "in the best interest's of the child" (though that is certainly
subjective, also)

And RARELY enforced, not to mention the issue is PRE any court order.


*I* would never have moved my daughter away from her father, or myself
away from my daughter.

NEVER say never.



But I MUST concede, you are correct that it is impossible for the child
to acquire an education if living with her father.
You are so silly, Chris, with all your twistings of things.

Since I am agreeing with you on this, guess what that makes YOU. But
that's
ok, so I'm "silly". However, the fact remains that my claims are TRUE.
Should you have an issue with any one of them, feel free to present your
argument.


If custody should not automatically go to the mother, that doesn;t mean
it should go to the father automatically, either.

Nor did I say so. Your point?


By the way, I NEVER projected any "personal interpretation" of
what's
fair
in this matter. But I DO know that 2+2=4. Always has, does now, and
ALWAYS
will.
And how about 3-1, Chris? Seems like it more accurately represents
the
situation under discussion here.
How about it? ALL three still exist. It isn't as if one has vanished.
Unless, of course, you consider the LEGAL (not to mention MORAL)
option
to
change residency comparable to a disappearing act.
How about the personal choice to MOVE AWAY from where your child is
living?

Since WHEN does a child call the shots as to where they shall live? Wait
a
minute, how silly of me to think that you are referring to the child
making
such decision. That's right, you are refering to the mother making it,
right?

Why should the child automatically go to the father; that seems to be
what you are suggesting, no?

No, I am not. Better question: Why should the child automatically go to the
MOTHER? Wait a minute, once again my mind slips. Of course, the child should
go to the mother because it is the mother who makes the SOLE decision to
create said child, thus making it HERS! I couldn't figure out why the
default is to the mother rather than joint; but now I know.

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



--

Sarah Gray

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip


Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in disbeleif at in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them next to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live life that
way?

It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a7c613afe6f2@uwe...
Chris wrote:
Why is the DBP crew in every group, discussion, topic, and thread
when it is
about child support? Is it possible for them to gripe anymore
about something
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
focus that anger on. I'm not saying that you are one such person, but
just in
case, I'd sooner avoid confrontation with you.

Translation: I prefer NOT to argue with those who challenge my false
claims.

That comment about it being the sole choice of the mother is original.
Usually when a husband and wife have a child it is a mutual decision,

Untrue. The pregnant woman is the FINAL, thus SOLE arbiter whether or not
to
create the child (give birth). If you don't believe that, then present a
case where a man has the RIGHT to force a woman to bear a child.

and the
husband is not usually forced to have sex.

Irrelevant.
I a m n o t g o i n g t o a r g u e w i t h y o u b e c a u s e I d o n '
t l
i k e t o w a s t e m y t i m e o n p e o p l e w i t h i s s u e s o t h
e
r t h a n n o r m a l.

The pregnant woman is the FINAL, thus SOLE arbiter whether or not to
create
the child (give birth).

Everyone is entitled to have a thought and share it. You did, I saw it,
but I
don't agree. I will most likely never agree with that particular opinion
of
your's,

It's not an opinion; it's a statement of FACT.

so I'm not going to linger on it. If you want to linger, go to town
with it. I just don't agree and nothing you say is going to make me agree
with you.

Suite yourself if you choose to continue living in a fantasy world.


It's not to be rude, or to offend you, I just don't agree. Can we leave it
alone now, or do I KF you?

I don't get offended easily, and not very likely that you could do it. It's
your call what you choose to do, and if you don't agree with the facts, not
my problem.


--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip


Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in disbeleif at in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them next to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live life that
way?

You're RIGHT! So just agree with me. Wait a minute. Actually, I should be
agreeing with YOU on everything. How dumb of me.


It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

Even MORE unfortunate is the fact that you buy into such nonsense. Oops, did
I just express an opinion by using the word "unfortunate"?

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip


Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in disbeleif at
in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them next to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live life that
way?

You're RIGHT! So just agree with me. Wait a minute. Actually, I should be
agreeing with YOU on everything. How dumb of me.


It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

Even MORE unfortunate is the fact that you buy into such nonsense. Oops,
did
I just express an opinion by using the word "unfortunate"?

Chris, your argument that men have no choice about whether or not a child is
born and should therefore have no responsibility for the child does not help
the cause of fatherr's rights--especially when you carry it to the
ridiculous length of saying that a married man-- who, along with his wife--
planned for the child, should be able to walk away with no responsibility
should he ever tire of the marriage or family. This sort of attitude does
NOT in any way help with the advancing of fatheers' rights because it makes
it seem that fathers are just looking to shirk any vestige of
responsibility, rather than seeking to be parents to their children even
when the mother and father are no longer together. Your view is just as
radical as the mothers-only view you so detest!

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip


Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in disbeleif at
in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them next
to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live life
that
way?

You're RIGHT! So just agree with me. Wait a minute. Actually, I should be
agreeing with YOU on everything. How dumb of me.


It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

Even MORE unfortunate is the fact that you buy into such nonsense. Oops,
did
I just express an opinion by using the word "unfortunate"?

Chris, your argument that men have no choice about whether or not a child
is born and should therefore have no responsibility for the child does not
help the cause of fatherr's rights--especially when you carry it to the
ridiculous length of saying that a married man-- who, along with his
wife-- planned for the child, should be able to walk away with no
responsibility should he ever tire of the marriage or family. This sort
of attitude does NOT in any way help with the advancing of fatheers'
rights because it makes it seem that fathers are just looking to shirk any
vestige of responsibility, rather than seeking to be parents to their
children even when the mother and father are no longer together. Your
view is just as radical as the mothers-only view you so detest!
It seems to me that the central issues here are individual
responsibility and equality.

No one ever seems to mention it in the mainstream media in the U.S., but
the vast majority of the single parent families that give rise to child
support are the result of unilateral decisions made by WOMEN. In these
cases, current law and practice enables these women to impose most of the
financial costs of such families on the fathers of their children. (Social
and other costs are imposed on the children themselves and on society as a
whole.) This cannot be right.

For reasons of justice, as well as removal of incentives for damaging
behavior, this situation should be changed. In the case of married couples,
the spouse who wants the breakup of the family should lose custody of the
children.

In the case of unmarried parents, so long as women have all kinds of
post-conception reproductive choices, men should have their version of those
choices. Men should have the legal right to disclaim responsibility for
unwanted (to them) pregnancies. There can be no justification for, on one
side of the equation, giving women all kinds of "rights," while on the other
hand denying men the choice given to them by Mother Nature--that of walking
away from unwanted pregnancies.

There is every reason to think that, if these principles were followed,
there would be a sharp drop in the number of single-parent families, with
enormous benefits for children and for society at large.

On Oct 31, 6:59 am, "Kenneth S." wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message

...





"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenw est.com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip

Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in disbeleif at
in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them next
to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live life
that
way?

You're RIGHT! So just agree with me. Wait a minute. Actually, I should be
agreeing with YOU on everything. How dumb of me.

It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

Even MORE unfortunate is the fact that you buy into such nonsense. Oops,
did
I just express an opinion by using the word "unfortunate"?

Chris, your argument that men have no choice about whether or not a child
is born and should therefore have no responsibility for the child does not
help the cause of fatherr's rights--especially when you carry it to the
ridiculous length of saying that a married man-- who, along with his
wife-- planned for the child, should be able to walk away with no
responsibility should he ever tire of the marriage or family. This sort
of attitude does NOT in any way help with the advancing of fatheers'
rights because it makes it seem that fathers are just looking to shirk any
vestige of responsibility, rather than seeking to be parents to their
children even when the mother and father are no longer together. Your
view is just as radical as the mothers-only view you so detest!

It seems to me that the central issues here are individual
responsibility and equality.

No one ever seems to mention it in the mainstream media in the U.S., but
the vast majority of the single parent families that give rise to child
support are the result of unilateral decisions made by WOMEN. In these
cases, current law and practice enables these women to impose most of the
financial costs of such families on the fathers of their children. (Social
and other costs are imposed on the children themselves and on society as a
whole.) This cannot be right.

For reasons of justice, as well as removal of incentives for damaging
behavior, this situation should be changed. In the case of married couples,
the spouse who wants the breakup of the family should lose custody of the
children.

In the case of unmarried parents, so long as women have all kinds of
post-conception reproductive choices, men should have their version of those
choices. Men should have the legal right to disclaim responsibility for
unwanted (to them) pregnancies. There can be no justification for, on one
side of the equation, giving women all kinds of "rights," while on the other
hand denying men the choice given to them by Mother Nature--that of walking
away from unwanted pregnancies.

There is every reason to think that, if these principles were followed,
there would be a sharp drop in the number of single-parent families, with
enormous benefits for children and for society at large.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Great lil article....http://www.squidoo.com/whydadwilllosecustody/

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip


Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in disbeleif at
in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them next
to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live life
that
way?

You're RIGHT! So just agree with me. Wait a minute. Actually, I should
be
agreeing with YOU on everything. How dumb of me.


It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

Even MORE unfortunate is the fact that you buy into such nonsense. Oops,
did
I just express an opinion by using the word "unfortunate"?

Chris, your argument that men have no choice about whether or not a child
is
born and should therefore have no responsibility for the child does not
help
the cause of fatherr's rights--especially when you carry it to the
ridiculous length of saying that a married man-- who, along with his
wife--
planned for the child, should be able to walk away with no responsibility
should he ever tire of the marriage or family. This sort of attitude does
NOT in any way help with the advancing of fatheers' rights because it
makes
it seem that fathers are just looking to shirk any vestige of
responsibility, rather than seeking to be parents to their children even
when the mother and father are no longer together. Your view is just as
radical as the mothers-only view you so detest!

You say this only because you fail to see the larger picture. Actually, it
is the government people, not I, who place fathers in such position. How?
When they say that fathers have no rights to children, they are ALSO saying
that fathers have no responsibilities to children. It simply follows.

Do I advocate fatherless families? Of course not! But neither do I advocate
the whackjobs running the government to have thier cake and eat it too.

I will place my bet on the idea that when fathers are completely eliminated
from the family (almost there now), the negative impact will be so great
that society will be forced to wake up and realize what the government
feminazis have done. Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom before treatment
is finally sought.

There is no way that winning small battles will EVER cure this cancer
afflicted on the family. At best, it will only appease some of the warriors
for justice, while at the same time provoking the enemy to fight even
harder. Thus, it will NEVER change. Sometimes, it takes a nuclear bomb to
effect a change, and hitting rock bottom is the perfect catalyst.