Child support - who needs it?

Other relevent groups restored. Only fools want to *hide*.

My Own Doppelganger ) exuded:
The real funny thing is that he thinks I'm a woman

50/50 odds.

and a feminist.

Thats a slam dunk. There are male Feminists, you know...

Oh, you don't. To your foolishness, " Feminist " equals " woman ".

Got it.

Maybe I should take a walk on the wild side and find out if it's
better. LOL!

Well, getting a life would help you...

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:04:49 +0800, "Rambler" iamrambler (at) yahoo
dot com scribbled in his own feces:

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) drooled:
"Andre Lieven"

The sex is great, the conversations are even better, and we
give all of ourselves to each other. Life is damned good.

But, since you are *such a fool* as to ASSume that the small
facet of myself that is appropriate to these issues is *all*
of me, well, its no wonder that you maintain the status of
*willfully and ignorantly foolish ASSumer*.

You know *nothing*, and you're too ****in' *dumb* to even take
your own *hypocritical* " advice ". Hypocrite much ? Yes...
you do.

You're funny. Pathetic, but funny.

projection

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
From my perspective, the NCP should pay more that 50% of the cost
associated with the upbringing of the child/children. Why?
Because
it takes a hell of a lot more energy than $$$'s to raise the kids.

No problem. If the " energy " is *too much* for you, then hand
over the kids to Dad, and pay *him* 70% of the " costs "...

Again, here we have a wonderful example of a woman who demands that
men *be responsible for her sole choices*...

Kahlooless ...

Yes, you are. As you again prove that you *cannot* refute/debate
the *topic*.

Thank you for continuing to display your deep *inabilities*.

You're still funny.

And, you're still an obsessed troll, who *can't* refute/debate
the *topic*...

Ah yes, *obsession,* a characteristic that you display so well. You cannot
stay on topic, and continue to twist. How ... feminist of you.

Atually, I made this the topic, so I am on topic.

( Delusions of adequacy... )

Which would be better than simply being inadequate.

PLus, Net-Godist fantasies.

Now Andre, I would never ASSume to take that title from you.

Ah,
the number of times when I personally have had you twist in the wind.

More delusions. Still, if it helps you get through your miserable,
divorced days...

Yes, yes, actually, if anybody wants to query alt.support.divorce, they'll
see all three, as well as I believe a post where I put links to all three.
I gave up refuting your arguments because, given a slight amount of time,
they were easy to do. So I now just rely upon case history. But of course
Andre, given your penchant for spouting off about what a great legal mind
you have and how you have set legal precedant, you'd understand all of that.
Snicker.

I believe MOD is male.

Yet, you could be wrong...

Yet I am not, because MOD wrote that his ex-wife did x y and z. Now, I
realize that with teh new love of your life, it could be possible that
both
of you are male,

Ah, the true siren call of the " inclusive " guy...

Right, but now that you have jumped off topic, yet again, I'll just footnote
the fact that, again, you are wrong. My, wasn't that easy. Yes yes, I
realize that to get away from that, you'll now shift the topic to "inclusive
guy" but that is just adhoministic of you. My, HYPOCRITE much?

Actually, my love of my life is a fantastic and very feminine, and
strong, woman. She loves that I'm a *man*, and not a faminised,
nancy boy metrosexual.

I see ... so you don't shave your back. What am I talking about, you don't
have any testosterone anyway, which is why you like these ditties.

Sorry, too bad for you. Why do you so much *dislike gay men* ?

Ah, I see that you are ASSuming things not placed into evidence. Kindly
cite where that came from. ... yes, I see, you can't. More of your hard
fought logic and "proof."

I know a few gay men, and they're good guys, and good friends. I
don't want to have sex with them, but theres a lot of women I
don't wnat to have sex with, either.

Ooh, la di da, you "know a few gay men." How absolutely ... metrosexual ...
of you. See, every time somebody brings up homosexuality, you immediately
got to "gay" men. Signs of fear.

And I am sure that there are a lot of women out there that you do not want
to have sex with, but you should really exclude the under 18 types as well.
And let us not forget the vast number of women who wouldn't be caught having
sex with you either. Don't worry, I'm not ASSuming things, just using your
own logic.

I'd rather save all that for my one lady, thank you very much.

So, why do you *hate gays* ?

Oops, *ASSuming* things again now aren't you. But then, that just makes up
the cornerstone of any argument line you might put forward. Gee, my best
mate in school was a homosexual, as is a good mate now. So, why do *you*
hate gays? I know, I know, it is an act. If you didn't dislike them and
weren't so unsure of your masculinity, you wouldn't react the way you do.

but for some reason I have to think that his was
traditional marraige.

Could be. But, as you *should know if you had a Polaroid of a clue*,
Feminist *isn't* a synonym for woman...

Oh, that isn't attacking the messenger, that is debating the issue.

Calling someone you don't like, gay, is " debate " ?

Wrong. No soup for you...

And, male feminists are among the worst of sexist scum. Their
self hating sex makes no difference to their *views*, or their
views being offal.

Yes, I know that feminist male rant that follows to cover-up your
ineptitude.

Wow, I predicted that accurately. Would that be because you are a
broken
record?

Or, is gravity, still gravity, even the next day ?

Yes, and applied to you you just proved my point ... always going downhill.
Yawn, Andre, yawn ... you are boring.

You apparently can't grasp... *consistancy*...

Well, I do strive not to be consistently wrong, but I know that I could
never usurp your position on that.

laughs

I wonder, Andre, is this vitriole like viagra for you, the only way
to get it up. To be so insecure in one's gender that you have to lash
out
at anything that is not a die-hard, union card carrying male is usually
the
sign of a homosexual.

ROTFLMAO ! Well, my S/O would seriously disagree with you.

Ooooh ... yer a man now arh ya? I've found the people that have sexual
prowess are the people who do not talk about it. I think you better go back
and diddle the missus to prove to yourself that you actually are a man.
Don't worry of you lose your erection (again), just think of all those
misandryist, feminist, adhominum gay bashing men, and it should "pop" right
back up.

But, then again, she *knows better*. You, you're just helplessly and
projectingly ignorantly, wallowing in self serving self imposed
*ignorance*.

snicker you're still funny Andre, still funny.

laughs But, relaly, why do you *hate gays so much* ?

You've got to keep coming back to that don't you. It really upsets you for
some reason. Really are clueless. *ASSuming* things again, aren't we.

No, just yours, as you were *unable* to debate/refute the *topic*.

Actually, I proved the topic.

laughs

Consistancy is so important. Thank you for continuing to be
*unable* to deal in *issues*...

laughs

I will give you the consistency one ... you are consistently clueless.

Says the guy who claims to *know* my sexuality *better than my S/O...

ROTFLMAO !!!

Is this kind of like the imaginary friend that you had in school? Thought
so.

Why DO you hate gays so much ?

And proved again. *ASSumptions* are a bad thing, you really need to learn
that. This one really upsets you doesn't it. Say hi to the boyfriend for
me, will ya Andre?

Rambler

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Rambler" (iamrambler yahoo dot com) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
From my perspective, the NCP should pay more that 50% of the cost
associated with the upbringing of the child/children. Why?
Because
it takes a hell of a lot more energy than $$$'s to raise the kids.

No problem. If the " energy " is *too much* for you, then hand
over the kids to Dad, and pay *him* 70% of the " costs "...

Again, here we have a wonderful example of a woman who demands that
men *be responsible for her sole choices*...

Kahlooless ...

Yes, you are. As you again prove that you *cannot* refute/debate
the *topic*.

Thank you for continuing to display your deep *inabilities*.

You're still funny.

And, you're still an obsessed troll, who *can't* refute/debate
the *topic*...

Ah yes, *obsession,* a characteristic that you display so well. You cannot
stay on topic, and continue to twist. How ... feminist of you.

Atually, I made this the topic, so I am on topic.

( Delusions of adequacy... )

Which would be better than simply being inadequate.

PLus, Net-Godist fantasies.

Now Andre, I would never ASSume to take that title from you.

Ah,
the number of times when I personally have had you twist in the wind.

More delusions. Still, if it helps you get through your miserable,
divorced days...

Yes, yes, actually, if anybody wants to query alt.support.divorce, they'll
see all three, as well as I believe a post where I put links to all three.
I gave up refuting your arguments because, given a slight amount of time,
they were easy to do. So I now just rely upon case history. But of course
Andre, given your penchant for spouting off about what a great legal mind
you have and how you have set legal precedant, you'd understand all of that.
Snicker.

I believe MOD is male.

Yet, you could be wrong...

Yet I am not, because MOD wrote that his ex-wife did x y and z. Now, I
realize that with teh new love of your life, it could be possible that
both
of you are male,

Ah, the true siren call of the " inclusive " guy...

Right, but now that you have jumped off topic, yet again, I'll just footnote
the fact that, again, you are wrong. My, wasn't that easy. Yes yes, I
realize that to get away from that, you'll now shift the topic to "inclusive
guy" but that is just adhoministic of you. My, HYPOCRITE much?

Actually, my love of my life is a fantastic and very feminine, and
strong, woman. She loves that I'm a *man*, and not a faminised,
nancy boy metrosexual.

I see ... so you don't shave your back. What am I talking about, you don't
have any testosterone anyway, which is why you like these ditties.

Sorry, too bad for you. Why do you so much *dislike gay men* ?

Ah, I see that you are ASSuming things not placed into evidence. Kindly
cite where that came from. ... yes, I see, you can't. More of your hard
fought logic and "proof."

I know a few gay men, and they're good guys, and good friends. I
don't want to have sex with them, but theres a lot of women I
don't wnat to have sex with, either.

Ooh, la di da, you "know a few gay men." How absolutely ... metrosexual ...
of you. See, every time somebody brings up homosexuality, you immediately
got to "gay" men. Signs of fear.

And I am sure that there are a lot of women out there that you do not want
to have sex with, but you should really exclude the under 18 types as well.
And let us not forget the vast number of women who wouldn't be caught having
sex with you either. Don't worry, I'm not ASSuming things, just using your
own logic.

I'd rather save all that for my one lady, thank you very much.

So, why do you *hate gays* ?

Oops, *ASSuming* things again now aren't you. But then, that just makes up
the cornerstone of any argument line you might put forward. Gee, my best
mate in school was a homosexual, as is a good mate now. So, why do *you*
hate gays? I know, I know, it is an act. If you didn't dislike them and
weren't so unsure of your masculinity, you wouldn't react the way you do.

but for some reason I have to think that his was
traditional marraige.

Could be. But, as you *should know if you had a Polaroid of a clue*,
Feminist *isn't* a synonym for woman...

Oh, that isn't attacking the messenger, that is debating the issue.

Calling someone you don't like, gay, is " debate " ?

Wrong. No soup for you...

And, male feminists are among the worst of sexist scum. Their
self hating sex makes no difference to their *views*, or their
views being offal.

Yes, I know that feminist male rant that follows to cover-up your
ineptitude.

Wow, I predicted that accurately. Would that be because you are a
broken
record?

Or, is gravity, still gravity, even the next day ?

Yes, and applied to you you just proved my point ... always going downhill.
Yawn, Andre, yawn ... you are boring.

You apparently can't grasp... *consistancy*...

Well, I do strive not to be consistently wrong, but I know that I could
never usurp your position on that.

laughs

I wonder, Andre, is this vitriole like viagra for you, the only way
to get it up. To be so insecure in one's gender that you have to lash
out
at anything that is not a die-hard, union card carrying male is usually
the
sign of a homosexual.

ROTFLMAO ! Well, my S/O would seriously disagree with you.

Ooooh ... yer a man now arh ya? I've found the people that have sexual
prowess are the people who do not talk about it. I think you better go back
and diddle the missus to prove to yourself that you actually are a man.
Don't worry of you lose your erection (again), just think of all those
misandryist, feminist, adhominum gay bashing men, and it should "pop" right
back up.

But, then again, she *knows better*. You, you're just helplessly and
projectingly ignorantly, wallowing in self serving self imposed
*ignorance*.

snicker you're still funny Andre, still funny.

laughs But, relaly, why do you *hate gays so much* ?

You've got to keep coming back to that don't you. It really upsets you for
some reason. Really are clueless. *ASSuming* things again, aren't we.

No, just yours, as you were *unable* to debate/refute the *topic*.

Actually, I proved the topic.

laughs

Consistancy is so important. Thank you for continuing to be
*unable* to deal in *issues*...

laughs

I will give you the consistency one ... you are consistently clueless.

Says the guy who claims to *know* my sexuality *better than my S/O...

ROTFLMAO !!!

Is this kind of like the imaginary friend that you had in school? Thought
so.

Why DO you hate gays so much ?

And proved again. *ASSumptions* are a bad thing, you really need to learn
that. This one really upsets you doesn't it. Say hi to the boyfriend for
me, will ya Andre?

Rambler

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
Other relevent groups restored. Only fools want to *hide*.

No moron, people trim headers because they don't want to have to subject
others to all of the idiocy that you spew. Still clueless. I'm tiring of
this "debate."

Rambler

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
Other relevent groups restored. Only fools want to *hide*.

No moron, people trim headers because they don't want to have to subject
others to all of the idiocy that you spew. Still clueless. I'm tiring of
this "debate."

Rambler

(Andre Lieven) wrote in message ...
happilyhippy ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) wrote in message ...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids.

However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some
type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also?

So ? In the case of children either not of marriages, or the hundreds
of thousands of men being garnished from, who are *not* the bio-
fathers of the children they're being stolen from to pay some lying
woman, there was NO express prior agreement to become a parent
offered the guy.

Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.

" Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. "

What part of women being *as responsible for their own choices as
their choices are*, is unclear to you ?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:20:17 -0600, Anti-Sheila J
smcneillAToddpostDOTcom wrote:

If the court would award me custody of my two daughters (ages 8 and
5), I would be willing to waive child support AND make certain I
exceeded all visitation requirements for their mother. I would make
this deal without any hesitation or reservation, whatsoever.

I was wondering if anyone here feels the same.

The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...

Andre

I think

Bzt. ASSumes facts not in evidence.

Plus, thinks for showing that you *cannot* refute/debate the
*topic*, and can *only* throw feeble attempts at personalities.

Since you *don't know **** about me, or my life*, its clear
that you prefer to spout IGNORANCE. In which case, we can
safely understand that your " views " are nothing more than
*misandry*.

BTW, I have a *great* relationship going with a spectacular
woman, a woman who understands that men are men, and that
hating men is, well, *insane*.

you had better wrap yourself up in cotton wool and never go
near a woman again - or men either just to be on the safe side. I am
sure you do already, but make sure to account for every one of your
sperm cos those women are everywhere!!

Funny how you *can't* demand that *women be as responsible for
their EGGS*...

Thank you for *proving* that you want men to *be responsible
for women, who YOU VIEW as fundamentally IRRESPONSIBLE.

Why do you *hate women so much* ?

Andre
I was being sarcastic I am afraid.
As someone who raises 4 children alone now, including working full
time to support them , I think no one would blame me for having the
completely opposite view to yourself. I dont because there are good
men, and good women. If you choose to make sweeping generalizations
and then get really hot under the collar about it then it is a real
waste of your energy. I think you have answered your own question
about why women posters are scarce around you.

(Andre Lieven) wrote in message ...
happilyhippy ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) wrote in message ...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids.

However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some
type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also?

So ? In the case of children either not of marriages, or the hundreds
of thousands of men being garnished from, who are *not* the bio-
fathers of the children they're being stolen from to pay some lying
woman, there was NO express prior agreement to become a parent
offered the guy.

Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.

" Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. "

What part of women being *as responsible for their own choices as
their choices are*, is unclear to you ?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:20:17 -0600, Anti-Sheila J
smcneillAToddpostDOTcom wrote:

If the court would award me custody of my two daughters (ages 8 and
5), I would be willing to waive child support AND make certain I
exceeded all visitation requirements for their mother. I would make
this deal without any hesitation or reservation, whatsoever.

I was wondering if anyone here feels the same.

The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...

Andre

I think

Bzt. ASSumes facts not in evidence.

Plus, thinks for showing that you *cannot* refute/debate the
*topic*, and can *only* throw feeble attempts at personalities.

Since you *don't know **** about me, or my life*, its clear
that you prefer to spout IGNORANCE. In which case, we can
safely understand that your " views " are nothing more than
*misandry*.

BTW, I have a *great* relationship going with a spectacular
woman, a woman who understands that men are men, and that
hating men is, well, *insane*.

you had better wrap yourself up in cotton wool and never go
near a woman again - or men either just to be on the safe side. I am
sure you do already, but make sure to account for every one of your
sperm cos those women are everywhere!!

Funny how you *can't* demand that *women be as responsible for
their EGGS*...

Thank you for *proving* that you want men to *be responsible
for women, who YOU VIEW as fundamentally IRRESPONSIBLE.

Why do you *hate women so much* ?

Andre
I was being sarcastic I am afraid.
As someone who raises 4 children alone now, including working full
time to support them , I think no one would blame me for having the
completely opposite view to yourself. I dont because there are good
men, and good women. If you choose to make sweeping generalizations
and then get really hot under the collar about it then it is a real
waste of your energy. I think you have answered your own question
about why women posters are scarce around you.

(Andre Lieven) wrote in message ...
happilyhippy ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) wrote in message ...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids.

However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some
type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also?

So ? In the case of children either not of marriages, or the hundreds
of thousands of men being garnished from, who are *not* the bio-
fathers of the children they're being stolen from to pay some lying
woman, there was NO express prior agreement to become a parent
offered the guy.

Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.

" Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. "

What part of women being *as responsible for their own choices as
their choices are*, is unclear to you ?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:20:17 -0600, Anti-Sheila J
smcneillAToddpostDOTcom wrote:

If the court would award me custody of my two daughters (ages 8 and
5), I would be willing to waive child support AND make certain I
exceeded all visitation requirements for their mother. I would make
this deal without any hesitation or reservation, whatsoever.

I was wondering if anyone here feels the same.

The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...

Andre

I think

Bzt. ASSumes facts not in evidence.

Plus, thinks for showing that you *cannot* refute/debate the
*topic*, and can *only* throw feeble attempts at personalities.

Since you *don't know **** about me, or my life*, its clear
that you prefer to spout IGNORANCE. In which case, we can
safely understand that your " views " are nothing more than
*misandry*.

BTW, I have a *great* relationship going with a spectacular
woman, a woman who understands that men are men, and that
hating men is, well, *insane*.

you had better wrap yourself up in cotton wool and never go
near a woman again - or men either just to be on the safe side. I am
sure you do already, but make sure to account for every one of your
sperm cos those women are everywhere!!

Funny how you *can't* demand that *women be as responsible for
their EGGS*...

Thank you for *proving* that you want men to *be responsible
for women, who YOU VIEW as fundamentally IRRESPONSIBLE.

Why do you *hate women so much* ?

Andre
I was being sarcastic I am afraid.
As someone who raises 4 children alone now, including working full
time to support them , I think no one would blame me for having the
completely opposite view to yourself. I dont because there are good
men, and good women. If you choose to make sweeping generalizations
and then get really hot under the collar about it then it is a real
waste of your energy. I think you have answered your own question
about why women posters are scarce around you.

(Andre Lieven) wrote in message ...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids.

Eh me God, it's, like, whatever's best for the kids 'n stuff.

Hey Buffy, it's best for the kids if I knock over a 7-11 and give the
loot to a kid's charity. Think they'd still put me in jail for it?

However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some
type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also?

Two sets of reasons.

1) Can't.
2) Won't.

The second is less common than the first. The first set could have
the following subsets.

a) In jail.

b) Poor.

c) Court order is based on "imputed" income, which is what some judge
rules that he _could_ make, if only he really really tried. Thus, the
order is out of proportion to his actual income, and the only possible
way to make the payments would be to live in a roach infested box and
ride a used Honda scooter back and forth to work. And even that might
not work. So then he winds up with arrearages, and those have
interest, and the debt quickly builds into a colossus that he can't
pay. It's kind of like credit card debt, only the child support
people aren't out for a profit. -Or are they?- Regardless, he
becomes another "deadbeat dad" statistic.

I'd say subset b is common, since the typical child support beggar is
an inner-city welfare queen with a habit of banging indigent men.
Then she stands aghast when they don't pay child support. Well duh.
What did she think would happen?

The second set has a variety of subsets. Sometimes the father didn't
even know she was pregnant until after the baby was born. He never
got word of the paternity hearing, and was thus declared the father en
absentia. One day, he gets a letter ordering him to pay thousands of
dollars, and he tells them all to f--- off.

Other times, the father flat out told the mohter, prior to birth, -I
don't want this child-. You either have an abortion, give the child
up for adoption, or drop it off at a fire station. I'll have nothing
to do with this. I won't pay child support. Of course she has the
child anyway, idiot that she is, then stands aghast when he won't pay
child support. Well duh. What did she think would happen?

Other times, a man paying child support _isn't the actual father of
the child_. Yet through legal and verbal contortions, the State
talks itself into shaking him down. Of course, he doesn't want to
pay.

I'm beginning to sound like Ron Popeil, but instead of saying "set it
and forget it," my refrain has become, "What did she think would
happen???"

Do women lack any kind of foresight whatsoever?

[...]

The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...

Andre

Not only is it sexist. It _should_ be embarassing for the women who
drive this engine, because they do so out of greed and a pathetic
inability to be responsible for their acts. Consider:

We have abortion on demand, because women shout from the rooftops for
it, and Godess forbid they should have to bear a child they conceive.

But the cackling about abortion on demand is all for nought, because
most will have the child and use it to live beyond their means anyway.

And all of the pitiful begging they do for OPM (other people's money)
comes just after they tell us how strong and independent they are, and
how we're supposed to hear them roar.

I'm listening, ladies. I can't hear it. Are you roaring yet?
Perhaps the cries of your indigent babies is drowning it out.

(Andre Lieven) wrote in message ...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids.

Eh me God, it's, like, whatever's best for the kids 'n stuff.

Hey Buffy, it's best for the kids if I knock over a 7-11 and give the
loot to a kid's charity. Think they'd still put me in jail for it?

However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some
type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also?

Two sets of reasons.

1) Can't.
2) Won't.

The second is less common than the first. The first set could have
the following subsets.

a) In jail.

b) Poor.

c) Court order is based on "imputed" income, which is what some judge
rules that he _could_ make, if only he really really tried. Thus, the
order is out of proportion to his actual income, and the only possible
way to make the payments would be to live in a roach infested box and
ride a used Honda scooter back and forth to work. And even that might
not work. So then he winds up with arrearages, and those have
interest, and the debt quickly builds into a colossus that he can't
pay. It's kind of like credit card debt, only the child support
people aren't out for a profit. -Or are they?- Regardless, he
becomes another "deadbeat dad" statistic.

I'd say subset b is common, since the typical child support beggar is
an inner-city welfare queen with a habit of banging indigent men.
Then she stands aghast when they don't pay child support. Well duh.
What did she think would happen?

The second set has a variety of subsets. Sometimes the father didn't
even know she was pregnant until after the baby was born. He never
got word of the paternity hearing, and was thus declared the father en
absentia. One day, he gets a letter ordering him to pay thousands of
dollars, and he tells them all to f--- off.

Other times, the father flat out told the mohter, prior to birth, -I
don't want this child-. You either have an abortion, give the child
up for adoption, or drop it off at a fire station. I'll have nothing
to do with this. I won't pay child support. Of course she has the
child anyway, idiot that she is, then stands aghast when he won't pay
child support. Well duh. What did she think would happen?

Other times, a man paying child support _isn't the actual father of
the child_. Yet through legal and verbal contortions, the State
talks itself into shaking him down. Of course, he doesn't want to
pay.

I'm beginning to sound like Ron Popeil, but instead of saying "set it
and forget it," my refrain has become, "What did she think would
happen???"

Do women lack any kind of foresight whatsoever?

[...]

The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...

Andre

Not only is it sexist. It _should_ be embarassing for the women who
drive this engine, because they do so out of greed and a pathetic
inability to be responsible for their acts. Consider:

We have abortion on demand, because women shout from the rooftops for
it, and Godess forbid they should have to bear a child they conceive.

But the cackling about abortion on demand is all for nought, because
most will have the child and use it to live beyond their means anyway.

And all of the pitiful begging they do for OPM (other people's money)
comes just after they tell us how strong and independent they are, and
how we're supposed to hear them roar.

I'm listening, ladies. I can't hear it. Are you roaring yet?
Perhaps the cries of your indigent babies is drowning it out.