Message to First Wives

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:22:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



Lighten up. I was just trying to have fun in a smart-alecky way. I
apologize
if I offended you.


Yeah right.. thats why you and everyone else attacks me constantly!!!

It's not YOU that I attack, rather it's your arguments. If you present false
information, I am going to call you on it.... plain and simple.

No matter what I say. Its not just one of you its all of you.

Just because I dont always agree with what you say. Nice.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:28:56 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

Teach.. FFK is a major troll - with a capital "T".

She lives for baiting others into her lies and then goes berserk when
they
don't see her way (which is quite contemptuous, if you ask me). Watch
how
her spelling does from bad to worse when she starts to loose control...

Then come the "blah, blah, blah" answers...

Trust me, she just simply will not engage in rational conversation with
anyone. In other words, in her world it's her way or the highway. And
she
thinks she owns the highway...


Really, and you all are any different?

You NEVER agree with what anyone else says in here, unless it comes
from YOUR Group.

--------------
Maybe because this group is basically for NCPs and CPs who realize that the
system as it is is unfair and unjust. This is one teeny little corner of
usenet where NCPs who get screwed by the system can vent with like minded
people. There are thousands upon thousands of groups that support people
with your viewpoint.

I, for one, am getting sick of your mindless baiting and constant bashing of
NCPs as "deadbeats" when that is not the case of many here. How can one be
a deadbeat when the government takes 50% to 65% of the NCP's paycheck for
child support. If the CP is recieving cs then the NCP is not a deadbeat.
You have shown that you are not interested in thoughtful debate nor have you
the ability to see the situation from the NCP's point of view. Many here
have told you that they are CPs who receive cs but they still do not think
that the system is fair. Others are NCPs who have been ordered to pay
unfair amounts of cs based on made up amounts of income while the CP
withholds visitation from them. And others are NCP who don't pay any cs at
all, (maybe one or two), don't see their kids and couldn't care less
because they moved to a different country that doesn't have an agreement
with the US.

The majority of people in this group believe that a child deserves support
from both parents and that support should include having both parents
equally involved in the childs life. Most here can certainly see things
from a CP's side. There have been many CPs who have wandered into this
group looking for information on what to do/where to go to get help with
getting cs and have received replies directing them to who can help them.
There are plenty of CPs who are really in dire straights, on welfare, on the
verge of being homeless, perhaps with special needs kids who do need help.
What I don't like are the CPs who choose not to work yet want cs to keep
their kids in a lifestyle that they hypothetically would have had if the
parents had not divorced. I don't like the fact that the NCP is forced to
pay money that is alledgedly for the kids but the CP is not required to
spend any of it on them. And I don't like the fact that the state provides
free, (or nearly so), legal help to collect cs for the CP yet doesn't have
any equivalent for the NCP who is being denied visitation. And last but not
least, (nor all), I don't like the fact that divorced parents are delegated
by law to provide for their kids while intact families are free to be as
rich or as poor as reality allows. No one tells an intact family that they
must, upon threat of jail, provide their kids with a college education,
health insurance or anything more than the barest of necessities. Intact
families standard of living is something that the government stays out of.
When there is extra money the family shares in it. When a parent loses a
job and there is less money the family shares in that as well. Reality,
that's why the government should stay out of family issues. They ignore
reality and make up a fantasy about the way things should be.

~AZ~


My spelling goes from im in a hurry to im not in a hurry.

blah blah blah answers mean nothing intelligent is coming out of your
mouth.

Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money hungary
whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.

In my world its called pay ****ing support and stop using excuses as
to why its not right for you to do so. You are supporting child
neglect and its sick.

You would rather have a new car, new house, go out rather than take
care of your children. Go blow.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
. com...
Fighting For Kids wrote in message
...
On 16 Nov 2003 18:19:58 GMT, (Gypsy0005) wrote:


Thanks you just proved that NCP's really can live a nice life after
their support and the theory that CS is "too much" can truely be
put
to rest.


What I proved is that since I work (unlike the ex) our child is
still
able to
live at the same standard as the kids from the first marriage.


What you proved is that you are selfish. Next.

Why do you see that as selfish, FFK? Wife #1 does not work, so her
children are at one standard of living. Wife # 2 works, so her
children are at another standard of living. Do you really think that
wife #2 should supplement wife #1, so all the children share the same
standard of living? Wife #2 is merely pointing out that the children
with wife #1 would have shared in all the extras, had they been
permitted a relationship with Dad. You don't really think that the
money spent on the children living with Dad & Wife #2 should have been
sent to Wife #1 also, so she could do the same things with the
children she did not permit dad to see?

Our children enjoy a higher standard of living than my husband's older
daughter. But I work, and that mom has never worked a day in her
life. Should my working supplement the standard of living of that mom
and her many illegitimate children by an equal number of fathers? Do
you really think such equality is possible?

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:28:56 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

Teach.. FFK is a major troll - with a capital "T".

She lives for baiting others into her lies and then goes berserk when
they
don't see her way (which is quite contemptuous, if you ask me). Watch
how
her spelling does from bad to worse when she starts to loose control...

Then come the "blah, blah, blah" answers...

Trust me, she just simply will not engage in rational conversation with
anyone. In other words, in her world it's her way or the highway. And
she
thinks she owns the highway...


Really, and you all are any different?

You NEVER agree with what anyone else says in here, unless it comes
from YOUR Group.

--------------
Maybe because this group is basically for NCPs and CPs who realize that the
system as it is is unfair and unjust. This is one teeny little corner of
usenet where NCPs who get screwed by the system can vent with like minded
people. There are thousands upon thousands of groups that support people
with your viewpoint.

I, for one, am getting sick of your mindless baiting and constant bashing of
NCPs as "deadbeats" when that is not the case of many here. How can one be
a deadbeat when the government takes 50% to 65% of the NCP's paycheck for
child support. If the CP is recieving cs then the NCP is not a deadbeat.
You have shown that you are not interested in thoughtful debate nor have you
the ability to see the situation from the NCP's point of view. Many here
have told you that they are CPs who receive cs but they still do not think
that the system is fair. Others are NCPs who have been ordered to pay
unfair amounts of cs based on made up amounts of income while the CP
withholds visitation from them. And others are NCP who don't pay any cs at
all, (maybe one or two), don't see their kids and couldn't care less
because they moved to a different country that doesn't have an agreement
with the US.

The majority of people in this group believe that a child deserves support
from both parents and that support should include having both parents
equally involved in the childs life. Most here can certainly see things
from a CP's side. There have been many CPs who have wandered into this
group looking for information on what to do/where to go to get help with
getting cs and have received replies directing them to who can help them.
There are plenty of CPs who are really in dire straights, on welfare, on the
verge of being homeless, perhaps with special needs kids who do need help.
What I don't like are the CPs who choose not to work yet want cs to keep
their kids in a lifestyle that they hypothetically would have had if the
parents had not divorced. I don't like the fact that the NCP is forced to
pay money that is alledgedly for the kids but the CP is not required to
spend any of it on them. And I don't like the fact that the state provides
free, (or nearly so), legal help to collect cs for the CP yet doesn't have
any equivalent for the NCP who is being denied visitation. And last but not
least, (nor all), I don't like the fact that divorced parents are delegated
by law to provide for their kids while intact families are free to be as
rich or as poor as reality allows. No one tells an intact family that they
must, upon threat of jail, provide their kids with a college education,
health insurance or anything more than the barest of necessities. Intact
families standard of living is something that the government stays out of.
When there is extra money the family shares in it. When a parent loses a
job and there is less money the family shares in that as well. Reality,
that's why the government should stay out of family issues. They ignore
reality and make up a fantasy about the way things should be.

~AZ~


My spelling goes from im in a hurry to im not in a hurry.

blah blah blah answers mean nothing intelligent is coming out of your
mouth.

Rational converstation? Calling womens ****S, bitches, whores, is
having a rational discussion? Calling CP's nothing but money hungary
whores is rational? I must have missed that lesson in school.

In my world its called pay ****ing support and stop using excuses as
to why its not right for you to do so. You are supporting child
neglect and its sick.

You would rather have a new car, new house, go out rather than take
care of your children. Go blow.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
. com...
Fighting For Kids wrote in message
...
On 16 Nov 2003 18:19:58 GMT, (Gypsy0005) wrote:


Thanks you just proved that NCP's really can live a nice life after
their support and the theory that CS is "too much" can truely be
put
to rest.


What I proved is that since I work (unlike the ex) our child is
still
able to
live at the same standard as the kids from the first marriage.


What you proved is that you are selfish. Next.

Why do you see that as selfish, FFK? Wife #1 does not work, so her
children are at one standard of living. Wife # 2 works, so her
children are at another standard of living. Do you really think that
wife #2 should supplement wife #1, so all the children share the same
standard of living? Wife #2 is merely pointing out that the children
with wife #1 would have shared in all the extras, had they been
permitted a relationship with Dad. You don't really think that the
money spent on the children living with Dad & Wife #2 should have been
sent to Wife #1 also, so she could do the same things with the
children she did not permit dad to see?

Our children enjoy a higher standard of living than my husband's older
daughter. But I work, and that mom has never worked a day in her
life. Should my working supplement the standard of living of that mom
and her many illegitimate children by an equal number of fathers? Do
you really think such equality is possible?

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Fighting For Kids wrote in message
...
Its called I have a life beyond this forum and the others that you
regularly post on.

Debate? That's what this is.. I thought it was a game. My mistake.

Go play with your kids if you want to play.

She can't have any kids - there's been a blockade put in place years ago
about men getting near enough to someone as brain-dead as FFK by every male
on the planet.

Besides, who in their right mind would dare to want to wake up next to her
come morning???
Ish!!! What a horrible thought!!!

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Fighting For Kids wrote in message
...
Its called I have a life beyond this forum and the others that you
regularly post on.

Debate? That's what this is.. I thought it was a game. My mistake.

Go play with your kids if you want to play.

She can't have any kids - there's been a blockade put in place years ago
about men getting near enough to someone as brain-dead as FFK by every male
on the planet.

Besides, who in their right mind would dare to want to wake up next to her
come morning???
Ish!!! What a horrible thought!!!

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:40:21 -0500, "Tiffany"
wrote:


Fighting For Kids wrote in message
.. .
Its called I have a life beyond this forum and the others that you
regularly post on.

Debate? That's what this is.. I thought it was a game. My mistake.

Go play with your kids if you want to play.


Why dont you go pull your head out of your butt..

Wow. I bet coming up with that remark took you the better part of six
days...

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:40:21 -0500, "Tiffany"
wrote:


Fighting For Kids wrote in message
.. .
Its called I have a life beyond this forum and the others that you
regularly post on.

Debate? That's what this is.. I thought it was a game. My mistake.

Go play with your kids if you want to play.


Why dont you go pull your head out of your butt..

Wow. I bet coming up with that remark took you the better part of six
days...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Fighting For Kids wrote in message
...
Its called I have a life beyond this forum and the others that you
regularly post on.

Debate? That's what this is.. I thought it was a game. My mistake.

Go play with your kids if you want to play.

She can't have any kids - there's been a blockade put in place years ago
about men getting near enough to someone as brain-dead as FFK by every
male
on the planet.

Besides, who in their right mind would dare to want to wake up next to her
come morning???
Ish!!! What a horrible thought!!!

LMAO........Obviously men like yourself that's why you are all here. And
before you ask or give your response I'm here for pure entertainment.

John

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Fighting For Kids wrote in message
...
Its called I have a life beyond this forum and the others that you
regularly post on.

Debate? That's what this is.. I thought it was a game. My mistake.

Go play with your kids if you want to play.

She can't have any kids - there's been a blockade put in place years ago
about men getting near enough to someone as brain-dead as FFK by every
male
on the planet.

Besides, who in their right mind would dare to want to wake up next to her
come morning???
Ish!!! What a horrible thought!!!

LMAO........Obviously men like yourself that's why you are all here. And
before you ask or give your response I'm here for pure entertainment.

John