If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Fred wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote: All you want to do is to be able to walk away from the mess you make when you spread your sperm hither and yon, because being responsible is so *inconvenient*, mostly to your wallet, which is the bottom line with you boys anyway. Y'all deny informed consent, y'all deny fairness and equity, y'all deny the child itself. It is the ultimate selfishness. Disgusting. What's disgusting is a mangina like you waltzing in here with no knowledge (didn't even know about legal abandonment or the statutes governing your own state of residence) and less sense and started to lecture people who've *personally* lived through some of the experiences that *YOU* insist can't happen...now *THAT'S* disgusting... Ken, I have concluded that it is no longer productive to attempt to have a reasonable discussion with you and your masculinist colleagues. We will simply have to agree to disagree. I'm fully capable of having a "reasonable" discussion...just let me know when you plan to stop bashing men in general...but don't expect me to accept statements and claims that I know are false... Y'all claim that you want equality. Not so. What y'all want is to enforce your ideas of male superiority and dominance through control of the money. If it's the man's money, he should have a say in how it's spent no ? If women don't want to have the owner of the money (ie: some man OR the government) tell them how much they can have and how to spend it...then they should get their money the "old fashioned way"...they should EARN IT ! When you side with a position that prefers seeing babies die in a dumpster rather than surrender even a scintilla of masculinist male superiority and dominance, there's simply nothing further to discuss. That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation. Bull****, I've never said I want babies to die in dumpsters, in fact, exactly the opposite. What I complained about was extending this sort of legal mechanism to abrogate parental obligations ONLY to women...see the difference ? ....Ken |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Ken Chaddock ) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote: "Phil" ) writes: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Fred" wrote in message use.net... Ken Chaddock wrote: Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "Fred" wrote ......................... I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's "inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the end of the day it's always about the money with y'all. It's disgusting, really. == Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff? What's "baby dropoff"? [sanctimony deleted] ...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or "hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws with more in progress. All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office, hospital or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this provision is NOT available to the father and those two they *require* that he provide identification...for future child support no doubt... If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that you can read yourself... Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose. The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the firehouse. How about you? So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away, no questions asked? IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it will happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the expenses of the baby, including arrearages. In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers are always in danger of later being brought into 'family court', perhaps even decades later. Theres one issue about these Legal Abandon Laws you've missed. Its that, how does a father get custody of an infant, in time to use a Legal Abandon Law ? Since new born infants tend to be with the mother, because they just popped out of the mother, it logically follows that any law that mandates use only for new born infants, een if it is written in " gender neutral " language, can only be used by te person who just physiclaly birthed the child: mommy. In order for dad to use Legal Abandon Laws, first dad would have to win legal custody, and the time needed to do that ( Assuming that he has great legal cause to win with, a situation that misandrous family kourts make greatly unlikely ), which would take the infant past the new born status that such drop offs are limited to. Yes, Andre, you've hit upon the obvious (to us perhaps) "devil in the details"...the man is virtually *never* in a position to take advantage of such laws and even if he is there is that pesky question of "custody" which, at birth, generally defaults to the mother... Exactly, and thats the " equality game " that Feminists and manginas like Frederica play. On paper things *look* equal, but in *practice*, they can never be. Thats whats disgusting. Andre |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Gini" ) writes:
"Ken Chaddock" wrote ............................ Yes, Andre, you've hit upon the obvious (to us perhaps) "devil in the details"...the man is virtually *never* in a position to take advantage of such laws and even if he is there is that pesky question of "custody" which, at birth, generally defaults to the mother... == Fathers who relinquish parental rights for adoption don't necessarily have physical custody of the child. Thats true. But, notice that such adoption laws are written differently from the Legal Abandon Laws in this area. Thats not by accident. Andre |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Dusty wrote:
The balance of power between male and female, father and mother, has been systematically destroyed in favor of female dominance at law. The following is a (short) list of female advantages over male. 1.. A married woman may legally abort her child without her husband's permission. This underscores the materialistic view that the male is merely a sperm donor and that the child is not a person. No man need donate any sperm to any woman including his wife so there would be no need for an abortion consideration. 2.. Although a wife may abort without permission from her husband, he cannot compel an abortion, even if the child is not his. Again not an issue if the man is bright enough to wear a condom. 3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born to the marriage even though it is not his. Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as his. 4.. Except for rich men and in cases of female default (prison, abandonment, hospitalization, death, et.al.) women universally receive custody of children and all that comes with it, the marital home and child support. Only men who are stupid enough to marry a woman who earns less money is faced with this problem. 5.. Denial of court ordered visitation is common place and not punished (yet failure to pay all your child support, for any reason, will cause the state to bring a myriad of punishments down on you). Only spouses who are not civilized are denied visitiation which is rare. Child support is of prime imporance to taxpayers because if your sperm and her egg produced offspring society wants you and your wife to cover the expense of raising the offspring right down to the last cent. It is all about dollars and sense not law. 6.. Alienation, turning the kids against their father, is commonplace and tolerated by the courts. When two idiots appear before a judge for a divorce, he has to work with what is before him. 7.. Any woman can tell any amount of lies in family court and not fear prosecution for perjury. Both men and women can lie in court and unless there is factual independent evidence beyond doubt to the contrary, then the lies cannot be proven otherwise. Prosecution for pergury is very important but giving parents a criminal record means the are basically unemployable for the rest of their lives which in the bigger picture does not serve the well being of the offspring they are required to support or society in general. 8.. Fathers routinely have their children taken from them by judges. In most, if not all, states men are not allowed to have jury trials. Juries would never do to families what judges do. State policy is executed via the judiciary. Don't put your faith in juries when it comes to family matters. These people are taxpayers and good citizens of your community. They would be disgusted at the thought of two parents having a jury trial for a family matter and all the costs of paying for the jury because juries get paid, too. The also would not tolerate stupid parents if they existed. 9.. Women frequently scam the welfare system. When they are caught they are not prosecuted or even made to pay back the money. Again if a woman is on welfare the question is why? Single no children is a different matter. Married on welfare, where is the husband? married with children, where is the husband? Giving anyone a criminal record means they are basically unemployable for life so society in general is not in agreement with that position. Society in general wants everybody working and paying for their own upkeep rather tha yet another tax burden. 10.. Women are the primary clients of the welfare state, not men. Most women can get honest work in even the smallest of towns or villages but for men it is not quite that easy. Women on welfare speaks to a large question of what women and why? 11.. When an unmarried woman misrepresents her fecundity to a man, he is still financially liable for her unilateral decision to become pregnant. No women becomes pregnant unless the guy is mentally challenged and doesn't wear a condom. 12.. If an unmarried woman becomes pregnant she may abort over the objection of the man. If she decides to keep the child he cannot compel an abortion and will be held liable for child support. Again stupid guys have stupid expensive things happen to them all the time and sometimes it involves women. 13.. Paternal grandparents have no rights of visitation with their son's children. For that matter neither do the maternal grandparents have rights of visitation - none that are enforced anyway. Children are the responsibility of the custodial parent or parents. All other interested parties would be able to visit on a guest-visit basis. 14.. Any woman may call the police and allege physical abuse. Even without any physical evidence the male will be arrested, booked and placed into the system for prosecution. He must prove his innocence. He will be evicted from his home without due process of law and may have a personal protection order (restraining order) filed against him. That is why it is important to choose the women you become involved in very carefully. Not any women is wise to become involved with. 15.. Any woman may allege sex abuse of one of her children and 800 years of constitutional protections are thrown out the window. Without due process of law the man will be evicted from his home, arrested, booked, released on bail and prosecuted. He will have to pay child support. The allegation of sex abuse may be used in family court to obtain permanent custody. He will have to pay tens of thousand of dollars for an attorney and all this while he is trying to fund a new residence. The custodial mother can smear his name in public with impunity and even try to destroy his employment and all without fear of correction from the court. The woman does not have to retain an attorney to prosecute the sex abuse case; that the state does this for her. If it is later discovered that she lied, the system will not prosecute her. The man will get his day in court after a year or two. But by then he has had his children taken from him and his property transferred to his accuser. If men and women of a relationship cannot get alone, the husband is removed because it is cheaper and quicker and wiser to remove the male rather than the children and wife because it disrupts the children's society setting in the neighbourhood and community. 16.. After divorce there are often many conflicts that have to be resolved by the court. The custodial mother does not have to hire an attorney, the court ancillary will represent her interest against the non-custodial father. The father must hire an attorney. He may represent himself but then he has a fool for an attorney. Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. 17.. The system is quick to increase child support and even base it on overtime and/or second jobs. However, if a man loses overtime or his second job (or his primary job) he quickly falls into "arrears." The courts will not make adjustments even if loss of income is not his fault - and in some cases, they may even increase the amount and call it "incentive" to find another, high paying job (which, to them is the only thing an NCP should ever seek, even if it's not in your chosen field or at your education level) so they can go after more "support" money. Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. 18.. Draconian measures for collection of child support have been federally mandated. These include seizure of assets, seizure of professional licenses and up to four years in prison (or more in some cases). Arrearages compound at exorbitant interest rates (some states charges up to 18% or more in interest alone!). Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. 19.. Child support accrues for men in prison with above market interest rates. Such men become "debt slaves" to the state. (See Title 42/Chapter 7/Subchapter IV/Part D/Subsection 666) Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. 20.. Men are traumatized by divorce and loss of their children but the courts will not tolerate a loss of income. The court will not adjust child support accordingly. Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"enquiring minds" wrote in message ... Dusty wrote: The balance of power between male and female, father and mother, has been systematically destroyed in favor of female dominance at law. The following is a (short) list of female advantages over male. snip 3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born to the marriage even though it is not his. Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as his. Please post a cite showing that your statement is correct. 4.. Except for rich men and in cases of female default (prison, abandonment, hospitalization, death, et.al.) women universally receive custody of children and all that comes with it, the marital home and child support. Only men who are stupid enough to marry a woman who earns less money is faced with this problem. What? Men are supposed to go around searching for womwn that earn equal to or more than them before they marry? Besides, you are incorrect. CS is to maintain the *lefestyle* of the child, and the noncustodial parent--usually the father--gets to supplement that lifestyle for the CP--it is not set up so that both households will bring in an equal amount of money. Where *do* you get your (mis)information? 5.. Denial of court ordered visitation is common place and not punished (yet failure to pay all your child support, for any reason, will cause the state to bring a myriad of punishments down on you). Only spouses who are not civilized are denied visitiation which is rare. By the courts, perhaps. But the custodial parent (usually the mother) can deny visitation and never suffer a single consequence. Child support is of prime imporance to taxpayers because if your sperm and her egg produced offspring society wants you and your wife to cover the expense of raising the offspring right down to the last cent. It is all about dollars and sense not law. No, it is not about keeping children off welfare--it is about providing children a *lifestyle.* Not basic needs. Most people would not object to paying 50% of the basic needs of a child. But paying for a certain lifestyl--which, by the way, is not required of married parents--is unfair. 6.. Alienation, turning the kids against their father, is commonplace and tolerated by the courts. When two idiots appear before a judge for a divorce, he has to work with what is before him. And tends to select the female idiot the majority of the time. Hmmmmm....unbiased system? Nope 7.. Any woman can tell any amount of lies in family court and not fear prosecution for perjury. Both men and women can lie in court and unless there is factual independent evidence beyond doubt to the contrary, then the lies cannot be proven otherwise. Prosecution for pergury is very important but giving parents a criminal record means the are basically unemployable for the rest of their lives which in the bigger picture does not serve the well being of the offspring they are required to support or society in general. Oh, so you are saying that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to not be prosecuted for filing false allegations of domestic violence against the man she is dumping? That the childfren will prosper living with a liar who has not compunctions about using the court system to get her own way, even if she bvreaks the law to do so. I can certainly see your point. The children will develop a deep reverence for our justice system, respect and admiration for their father, and will NEVER lie to their mothers about anything, because they will know by her example that lying to get your own way is wrong. How brilliant you are! 8.. Fathers routinely have their children taken from them by judges. In most, if not all, states men are not allowed to have jury trials. Juries would never do to families what judges do. State policy is executed via the judiciary. Don't put your faith in juries when it comes to family matters. These people are taxpayers and good citizens of your community. They would be disgusted at the thought of two parents having a jury trial for a family matter and all the costs of paying for the jury because juries get paid, too. The also would not tolerate stupid parents if they existed. Where on earth do you come up with this stuff? 9.. Women frequently scam the welfare system. When they are caught they are not prosecuted or even made to pay back the money. Again if a woman is on welfare the question is why? Single no children is a different matter. Married on welfare, where is the husband? married with children, where is the husband? Giving anyone a criminal record means they are basically unemployable for life so society in general is not in agreement with that position. Society in general wants everybody working and paying for their own upkeep rather tha yet another tax burden. So we let the welfare mamas get away with their crimes so as not to harm the children? Brilliant! 10.. Women are the primary clients of the welfare state, not men. Most women can get honest work in even the smallest of towns or villages but for men it is not quite that easy. Women on welfare speaks to a large question of what women and why? Huh? 11.. When an unmarried woman misrepresents her fecundity to a man, he is still financially liable for her unilateral decision to become pregnant. No women becomes pregnant unless the guy is mentally challenged and doesn't wear a condom. Really? How about the ones who take the used condoms and impregnate themselves after the man falls asleep? 12.. If an unmarried woman becomes pregnant she may abort over the objection of the man. If she decides to keep the child he cannot compel an abortion and will be held liable for child support. Again stupid guys have stupid expensive things happen to them all the time and sometimes it involves women. Again, that certainly makes it ok for women to lie to men in order to get what they want from him. You certainly do have a thing for women who lie! Did you learn that from your mother? 13.. Paternal grandparents have no rights of visitation with their son's children. For that matter neither do the maternal grandparents have rights of visitation - none that are enforced anyway. Children are the responsibility of the custodial parent or parents. All other interested parties would be able to visit on a guest-visit basis. Oh. So you are saying that fathers are merely visitors in their children's lives? You really must have had some winner of a mother. gag 14.. Any woman may call the police and allege physical abuse. Even without any physical evidence the male will be arrested, booked and placed into the system for prosecution. He must prove his innocence. He will be evicted from his home without due process of law and may have a personal protection order (restraining order) filed against him. That is why it is important to choose the women you become involved in very carefully. Not any women is wise to become involved with. Women like the mother who taught you all this wonderful stuff, huh? 15.. Any woman may allege sex abuse of one of her children and 800 years of constitutional protections are thrown out the window. Without due process of law the man will be evicted from his home, arrested, booked, released on bail and prosecuted. He will have to pay child support. The allegation of sex abuse may be used in family court to obtain permanent custody. He will have to pay tens of thousand of dollars for an attorney and all this while he is trying to fund a new residence. The custodial mother can smear his name in public with impunity and even try to destroy his employment and all without fear of correction from the court. The woman does not have to retain an attorney to prosecute the sex abuse case; that the state does this for her. If it is later discovered that she lied, the system will not prosecute her. The man will get his day in court after a year or two. But by then he has had his children taken from him and his property transferred to his accuser. If men and women of a relationship cannot get alone, the husband is removed because it is cheaper and quicker and wiser to remove the male rather than the children and wife because it disrupts the children's society setting in the neighbourhood and community. Why can't the mother be removed, leaving the children with the father? 16.. After divorce there are often many conflicts that have to be resolved by the court. The custodial mother does not have to hire an attorney, the court ancillary will represent her interest against the non-custodial father. The father must hire an attorney. He may represent himself but then he has a fool for an attorney. Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. Again, post your cites. Otherwise it is just your opinion. And a ridiculous one at that. 17.. The system is quick to increase child support and even base it on overtime and/or second jobs. However, if a man loses overtime or his second job (or his primary job) he quickly falls into "arrears." The courts will not make adjustments even if loss of income is not his fault - and in some cases, they may even increase the amount and call it "incentive" to find another, high paying job (which, to them is the only thing an NCP should ever seek, even if it's not in your chosen field or at your education level) so they can go after more "support" money. Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. Untrue. See above. 18.. Draconian measures for collection of child support have been federally mandated. These include seizure of assets, seizure of professional licenses and up to four years in prison (or more in some cases). Arrearages compound at exorbitant interest rates (some states charges up to 18% or more in interest alone!). Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. Untrue. See above. 19.. Child support accrues for men in prison with above market interest rates. Such men become "debt slaves" to the state. (See Title 42/Chapter 7/Subchapter IV/Part D/Subsection 666) Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. Untrue. See above. 20.. Men are traumatized by divorce and loss of their children but the courts will not tolerate a loss of income. The court will not adjust child support accordingly. Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. Untrue. See above. |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"enquiring minds" wrote Dusty wrote: ............................. 3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born to the marriage even though it is not his. Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as his. == You do know you're wrong about a whole bunch of crap, right? == |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Gini" wrote in message newsdxYg.422$cQ5.292@trndny06... "enquiring minds" wrote Dusty wrote: ............................ 3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born to the marriage even though it is not his. Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as his. == You do know you're wrong about a whole bunch of crap, right? == Probably doesn't care. Just wants to keep the money flowing. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Enquiring minds" makes frequent references in her comments below to
"stupid men," and the various ways in which they show their stupidity. However, the whole tone of her message suggests that any man who has any intimate contact with a woman is stupid -- particularly if the woman exhibits the attitudes shown by "enquiring minds." This is the kind of message that tells us much more about "enquiring minds" than it does about the issues being discussed here. Dusty is right. The balance of power between the sexes HAS been destroyed. No man in his right mind would want to subject himself to the sort of female tyranny that "enquiring minds" seeks to defend. Apparently, the only male course of action that "enquiring minds" will permit is to become involved with women who have substantial economic resources of their own -- in other words, become gold-diggers. As for me, I'm waiting until Anna Nicole Smith (aka the Widow Marshall) gets her hands on her deceased oilman husband's millions. THEN, I'll make my move. Is that good enough, "enquiring minds?" Does that take me out of your category of the "stupid men?" "enquiring minds" wrote in message ... Dusty wrote: The balance of power between male and female, father and mother, has been systematically destroyed in favor of female dominance at law. The following is a (short) list of female advantages over male. 1.. A married woman may legally abort her child without her husband's permission. This underscores the materialistic view that the male is merely a sperm donor and that the child is not a person. No man need donate any sperm to any woman including his wife so there would be no need for an abortion consideration. 2.. Although a wife may abort without permission from her husband, he cannot compel an abortion, even if the child is not his. Again not an issue if the man is bright enough to wear a condom. 3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born to the marriage even though it is not his. Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as his. 4.. Except for rich men and in cases of female default (prison, abandonment, hospitalization, death, et.al.) women universally receive custody of children and all that comes with it, the marital home and child support. Only men who are stupid enough to marry a woman who earns less money is faced with this problem. 5.. Denial of court ordered visitation is common place and not punished (yet failure to pay all your child support, for any reason, will cause the state to bring a myriad of punishments down on you). Only spouses who are not civilized are denied visitiation which is rare. Child support is of prime imporance to taxpayers because if your sperm and her egg produced offspring society wants you and your wife to cover the expense of raising the offspring right down to the last cent. It is all about dollars and sense not law. 6.. Alienation, turning the kids against their father, is commonplace and tolerated by the courts. When two idiots appear before a judge for a divorce, he has to work with what is before him. 7.. Any woman can tell any amount of lies in family court and not fear prosecution for perjury. Both men and women can lie in court and unless there is factual independent evidence beyond doubt to the contrary, then the lies cannot be proven otherwise. Prosecution for pergury is very important but giving parents a criminal record means the are basically unemployable for the rest of their lives which in the bigger picture does not serve the well being of the offspring they are required to support or society in general. 8.. Fathers routinely have their children taken from them by judges. In most, if not all, states men are not allowed to have jury trials. Juries would never do to families what judges do. State policy is executed via the judiciary. Don't put your faith in juries when it comes to family matters. These people are taxpayers and good citizens of your community. They would be disgusted at the thought of two parents having a jury trial for a family matter and all the costs of paying for the jury because juries get paid, too. The also would not tolerate stupid parents if they existed. 9.. Women frequently scam the welfare system. When they are caught they are not prosecuted or even made to pay back the money. Again if a woman is on welfare the question is why? Single no children is a different matter. Married on welfare, where is the husband? married with children, where is the husband? Giving anyone a criminal record means they are basically unemployable for life so society in general is not in agreement with that position. Society in general wants everybody working and paying for their own upkeep rather tha yet another tax burden. 10.. Women are the primary clients of the welfare state, not men. Most women can get honest work in even the smallest of towns or villages but for men it is not quite that easy. Women on welfare speaks to a large question of what women and why? 11.. When an unmarried woman misrepresents her fecundity to a man, he is still financially liable for her unilateral decision to become pregnant. No women becomes pregnant unless the guy is mentally challenged and doesn't wear a condom. 12.. If an unmarried woman becomes pregnant she may abort over the objection of the man. If she decides to keep the child he cannot compel an abortion and will be held liable for child support. Again stupid guys have stupid expensive things happen to them all the time and sometimes it involves women. 13.. Paternal grandparents have no rights of visitation with their son's children. For that matter neither do the maternal grandparents have rights of visitation - none that are enforced anyway. Children are the responsibility of the custodial parent or parents. All other interested parties would be able to visit on a guest-visit basis. 14.. Any woman may call the police and allege physical abuse. Even without any physical evidence the male will be arrested, booked and placed into the system for prosecution. He must prove his innocence. He will be evicted from his home without due process of law and may have a personal protection order (restraining order) filed against him. That is why it is important to choose the women you become involved in very carefully. Not any women is wise to become involved with. 15.. Any woman may allege sex abuse of one of her children and 800 years of constitutional protections are thrown out the window. Without due process of law the man will be evicted from his home, arrested, booked, released on bail and prosecuted. He will have to pay child support. The allegation of sex abuse may be used in family court to obtain permanent custody. He will have to pay tens of thousand of dollars for an attorney and all this while he is trying to fund a new residence. The custodial mother can smear his name in public with impunity and even try to destroy his employment and all without fear of correction from the court. The woman does not have to retain an attorney to prosecute the sex abuse case; that the state does this for her. If it is later discovered that she lied, the system will not prosecute her. The man will get his day in court after a year or two. But by then he has had his children taken from him and his property transferred to his accuser. If men and women of a relationship cannot get alone, the husband is removed because it is cheaper and quicker and wiser to remove the male rather than the children and wife because it disrupts the children's society setting in the neighbourhood and community. 16.. After divorce there are often many conflicts that have to be resolved by the court. The custodial mother does not have to hire an attorney, the court ancillary will represent her interest against the non-custodial father. The father must hire an attorney. He may represent himself but then he has a fool for an attorney. Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. 17.. The system is quick to increase child support and even base it on overtime and/or second jobs. However, if a man loses overtime or his second job (or his primary job) he quickly falls into "arrears." The courts will not make adjustments even if loss of income is not his fault - and in some cases, they may even increase the amount and call it "incentive" to find another, high paying job (which, to them is the only thing an NCP should ever seek, even if it's not in your chosen field or at your education level) so they can go after more "support" money. Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. 18.. Draconian measures for collection of child support have been federally mandated. These include seizure of assets, seizure of professional licenses and up to four years in prison (or more in some cases). Arrearages compound at exorbitant interest rates (some states charges up to 18% or more in interest alone!). Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. 19.. Child support accrues for men in prison with above market interest rates. Such men become "debt slaves" to the state. (See Title 42/Chapter 7/Subchapter IV/Part D/Subsection 666) Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. 20.. Men are traumatized by divorce and loss of their children but the courts will not tolerate a loss of income. The court will not adjust child support accordingly. Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do. |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Kenneth S. wrote:
"Enquiring minds" makes frequent references in her comments below to "stupid men," and the various ways in which they show their stupidity. That is a distortion. I searched the message in question for the phrase "stupid men", and what I found was the phrase, "this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do." However, the whole tone of her message suggests that any man who has any intimate contact with a woman is stupid -- particularly if the woman exhibits the attitudes shown by "enquiring minds." More distortions ... This is the kind of message that tells us much more about "enquiring minds" than it does about the issues being discussed here. .... and yet more. Dusty is right. The balance of power between the sexes HAS been destroyed. Y'all masculinists aren't talking about balance of power. y'all are talking about male superiority and dominance over women, specifically by controlling the money. So it's real simple: if you want to control the money, execute a pre-nup. I am a big fan of pre-nups, because they spell out the responsibilities of the parties. That's always a good thing, in my opinion. It is simply the smart thing to do. |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Oh-oh, Kenneth. Looks like Freddi-girl wants the Widow Marshall for
herself. Or at least the Widow Marshall's oilman husbands millions. Looks like you've got some competition! (And Freddi believes in prenups as if they will actually upheld in court! snicker) "Fred" wrote in message . net... Kenneth S. wrote: "Enquiring minds" makes frequent references in her comments below to "stupid men," and the various ways in which they show their stupidity. That is a distortion. I searched the message in question for the phrase "stupid men", and what I found was the phrase, "this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they do." However, the whole tone of her message suggests that any man who has any intimate contact with a woman is stupid -- particularly if the woman exhibits the attitudes shown by "enquiring minds." More distortions ... This is the kind of message that tells us much more about "enquiring minds" than it does about the issues being discussed here. ... and yet more. Dusty is right. The balance of power between the sexes HAS been destroyed. Y'all masculinists aren't talking about balance of power. y'all are talking about male superiority and dominance over women, specifically by controlling the money. So it's real simple: if you want to control the money, execute a pre-nup. I am a big fan of pre-nups, because they spell out the responsibilities of the parties. That's always a good thing, in my opinion. It is simply the smart thing to do. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 28th 05 06:27 AM |
Parent-Child Negotiations | Nathan A. Barclay | Spanking | 623 | January 28th 05 05:24 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 06:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 28th 04 06:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |