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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:xT%Vi.9924$%r.6843@trnddc01...

"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.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not skewed in
either direction!

"Chris" wrote in message ...


--
[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.

Actually, Chris, they DON'T say that. They may take away rights, but they
expand the responsibilities. That's what needs to be changed. And being as
nasty, hateful, and uncooperative as they are only continues the problem and
solves nothing.


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.

Neither do I, Chris.


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.

Let's hope it does not get that far. But let's also hope that we never get
to a point where men can actually walk away with no responsibilities toward
the children they help create. That would be no better than the situation
we have now--just easier on the wallets of men.


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.

But that does not mean we should stop fighting.

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:xT%Vi.9924$%r.6843@trnddc01...

"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.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not skewed in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child support"!

"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"?

No, you just expressed your asinine stupidity

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:xT%Vi.9924$%r.6843@trnddc01...

"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.

I agree. Also a parent that moves away from the child loses custody rights
as well (CP or NCP)


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.

No arguement from me :-)

"Chris" wrote in message ...


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.

Which is why you are doomed to failure.

At best, it will only appease some of the warriors
for justice, while at the same time provoking the enemy to fight even
harder.

Those that fail to learn from history (like yourself) are doomed to repeat
it.

Thus, it will NEVER change.

Because of people like you

Sometimes, it takes a nuclear bomb to
effect a change, and hitting rock bottom is the perfect catalyst.


sign

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:xT%Vi.9924$%r.6843@trnddc01...

"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.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not skewed in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child support"!



Nope, and is just further evidnece why you continue to fight a losing
battle.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:xT%Vi.9924$%r.6843@trnddc01...

"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.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not skewed in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child support"!

Not necessarily.

"animal02" wrote in

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child support"!

Nope, and is just further evidnece why you continue to fight a losing
battle.

Have we won anything yet?

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not skewed in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child support"!

Not necessarily.

unfortunately the government is so out of touch and too easily influenced
by women's groups that all authority needs tobe taken fromthem, we need to
baby sit the government, not the other way around.

Given that 97% of fathers will look after their kids without any strong arm
tactics, why punish them for the 3% that will disappear with any system in
place? You have to remove any incentive that causes the bitter custody
battles and pushes fathers away when they fear the government and their CS
system.

People wanted no fault divorce, there should be no fault custody too, 50/50
with no money exchanged.