Deadbeat dad, singer & Ruben Studdard look-alike Sean Levert died of natural causes; prob. faked his death to avoid paying all that C.S.

"DVD" wrote in message
...
Phil wrote:


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.

Holy crap you are dishonest, in my hypothetical situation the only
thing that ISN'T a problem is the money.


That's the problem. Your situation is make-believe while ours are
factual.

The problem is that you purposely misinterpret what you read in order
to stick to the party line. Your hypothetical included me being
divorced and my wife wanting to take over my kids activities, that one
wasn't factual, it was hypothetical just like all of your other
hypothetical (make believe) situations.

I gave you a possibility to go with YOUR hypothetical situation.
If you think it is impossible or even unlikely, you are living in the
same make-believe world the majority of the rest of us did; until we
learned that the entire system surrounding family law is incredibly
flawed.


See the difference? In case you missed it, you get to make up your
situation as you wish, we didn't have that option.


You certainly do, you (meaning all of you) have posted one
hypothetical situation after another. In each case you post one
person's side of the story and you all join in to swear to it. I
posted a hypothetical situation (just like you all did) and not one
person could provide an honest answer. So tell me, should the meth
dealer/pimp get custody just because he can afford custody? Or is the
premise of the quote wrong?

So now you're saying that our experiences are false again and then
saying that the ONLY outcome to your make-believe world is the one you
want it to be, that all other outcomes are just wrong? I can see why you
think the make-believe article in a newspaper is factual while
experiences are not.
To be blunt, you live in an alternate reality.
I didn't propose that money should determine custody, you'll have to
take that up with Chris since it's not my argument and I don't care to
get sidetracked even further afield.



SHould the guy described above be allowed to raise his kids just
because he provides child support? He's good enough to support the
child, is he really good enough to have custody? Dig down deep into
your brain, back before you hated women and everyone in the world was
out to get you and answer that question.


I didn't make the claim but I was trying to educate you. I know,
ignorance can be cured but stupid goes on forever but I can dream
that you'll have a weak moment and actually THINK.

So you can't answer. This was a pretty simple one, if you can't be
honest with this one then you can never be honest. Rather than admit
the truth, you heap one unrelated tangent on top of another.

No, I won't go into that argument in this thread. I didn't make the
claim.
If you want to discuss it, Chris is ready, willing and able to discuss
it with you.
I will say that being male should not disqualify anyone and that ALL
parents should support their children, not just the "absent" parent.
See, my argument is that BOTH parents are needed, not just mothers. The
only form of custody that I agree with and then only when necessary is
shared custody.
Phil #3

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:Otm2k.16$Jj1.11@trndny02...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:bAl2k.52$WH.12@trndny05...
"teachrmama" wrote
..........

We never have heard your wife's side of thestory about your
marriage.
==
I would love to hear from her-- perhaps she'll weigh in. Remember
years ago when Brian's (was it Brian?) wife chimed in and told us
what a liar he was :-). Loved that one!

I do remember that. We have had some interesting people posting
here. But nobody yet has topped Crystal and her golf carts.
chuckle
===
Yeah, she's still the queen of ACS ruses. I still think this guy's a
bitter second hubby. They all sound alike.

Definitely a radical feminist woman. Communicates ideas by asking
questions. Attacks men in general. Uses feminist stereotype terms
like misogynist. Backs away from beliefs when confronted with facts.
Expresses her opinions as feelings. Now we are starting to hear the
racial undertones of how we are white men. I still think this is the
same poster who came in here a year or so ago and claimed to be doing
research with her sock puppet colleague just before she announced her
work was done.

I totally agree. This is about what I've been saying for a few days now.
When the term "misogynist" is used as an argument, especially in
reference to feminism, one can BET the speaker is feminist. (they are so
egotistical that not liking them personally is an indication to them
that one must hate all women)
Phil #3

"Gini" wrote in message news:Otm2k.16$Jj1.11@trndny02...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:bAl2k.52$WH.12@trndny05...
"teachrmama" wrote
..........

We never have heard your wife's side of thestory about your marriage.
==
I would love to hear from her-- perhaps she'll weigh in. Remember years
ago when Brian's (was it Brian?) wife chimed in and told us what a liar
he was :-). Loved that one!

I do remember that. We have had some interesting people posting here.
But nobody yet has topped Crystal and her golf carts. chuckle
===
Yeah, she's still the queen of ACS ruses. I still think this guy's a
bitter second hubby. They all sound alike.

I rather miss Moonie. At least she'd listen to reason (ok, after a long
while sometimes), but this klutz, DVD.. Good grief, what a maroon!

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

..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"DVD" wrote in message
...
Phil wrote:


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.

Holy crap you are dishonest, in my hypothetical situation the only
thing that ISN'T a problem is the money.


That's the problem. Your situation is make-believe while ours are
factual.

The problem is that you purposely misinterpret what you read in order
to stick to the party line. Your hypothetical included me being
divorced and my wife wanting to take over my kids activities, that one
wasn't factual, it was hypothetical just like all of your other
hypothetical (make believe) situations.

I gave you a possibility to go with YOUR hypothetical situation.
If you think it is impossible or even unlikely, you are living in the
same make-believe world the majority of the rest of us did; until we
learned that the entire system surrounding family law is incredibly
flawed.

Now THAT'S an understatement! Try incredibly CORRUPT.




See the difference? In case you missed it, you get to make up your
situation as you wish, we didn't have that option.


You certainly do, you (meaning all of you) have posted one
hypothetical situation after another. In each case you post one
person's side of the story and you all join in to swear to it. I
posted a hypothetical situation (just like you all did) and not one
person could provide an honest answer. So tell me, should the meth
dealer/pimp get custody just because he can afford custody? Or is the
premise of the quote wrong?

So now you're saying that our experiences are false again and then
saying that the ONLY outcome to your make-believe world is the one you
want it to be, that all other outcomes are just wrong? I can see why you
think the make-believe article in a newspaper is factual while
experiences are not.
To be blunt, you live in an alternate reality.
I didn't propose that money should determine custody, you'll have to
take that up with Chris since it's not my argument and I don't care to
get sidetracked even further afield.



SHould the guy described above be allowed to raise his kids just
because he provides child support? He's good enough to support the
child, is he really good enough to have custody? Dig down deep into
your brain, back before you hated women and everyone in the world was
out to get you and answer that question.


I didn't make the claim but I was trying to educate you. I know,
ignorance can be cured but stupid goes on forever but I can dream
that you'll have a weak moment and actually THINK.

So you can't answer. This was a pretty simple one, if you can't be
honest with this one then you can never be honest. Rather than admit
the truth, you heap one unrelated tangent on top of another.

No, I won't go into that argument in this thread. I didn't make the
claim.
If you want to discuss it, Chris is ready, willing and able to discuss
it with you.
I will say that being male should not disqualify anyone and that ALL
parents should support their children, not just the "absent" parent.
See, my argument is that BOTH parents are needed, not just mothers. The
only form of custody that I agree with and then only when necessary is
shared custody.
Phil #3