 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / September 2009Schwarzenegger's propaganda
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child." Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa. Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily start a process that will extort his money/freedom? Ya gotta just LOVE the propaganda ............. http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Resources/EstablishPaternity/tabid/101/Default.aspx > "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of > a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily start a process > that will extort his money/freedom? Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no idea who the father might be. The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the father's knowledge. >> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of >> a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the > father's knowledge. Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his money/freedom? >>> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father >>> of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his > money/freedom? The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother chooses to give up the child. Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father. Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep. [snip] >> Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since >> the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps > the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep. OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage the prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs. >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage the >prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs. The only advantage to the man in registering as the child's father is the possibility that he will be able to have some kind of relationship with the child, even if the mother doesn't want this. However, I very much doubt whether this is worth much. The system is notoriously lax about enforcing visitation, by contrast with the huge amount of resources devoted to enforcing "child support." I've seen comments from CS officials indicating that the father registration provision is nothing more than a deliberate trap for the unwary. The idea is that, immediately after a child is born, the man who thinks he is the father will be inordinately proud of his situation, and will want to be identified as the father. But the bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get 18+ years of "child support" from him. >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get > 18+ years of "child support" from him. The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal. Phil #3 >>>[snip] [snip] > The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to > consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole > problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and > vocal. That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around. I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight. Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow. Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist! There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting into the ring with the girls. >>>>[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting > into the ring with the girls. That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active. Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable. How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye. Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it. Phil #3 >>>>>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > >Phil #3 "In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." (Warren Farrell) Phil (and Warren Farrell) have hit the nail on the head. In my more than 20 years of involvement in these issues, I've often asked myself WHY men are unable to respond to the threats against them by getting organized to defend their own interests. One answer, I think, is that heterosexual men -- to put it bluntly -- want to get laid, and they think (probably correctly) that their appeal to women will be diminished if they appear to be gender warriors on behalf of their own sex. Notions of gallantry are another element. One thing that needs to be done is for men to overcome their reluctance to speak out about discrimination against men in such areas as family law, health, and the media. My attitude is that, if speaking out turns off some women, then so be it. Women who fail to see the grotesque bias against men in so many areas are not worth cultivating anyway. Interestingly enough, there was an attempt several years ago to get all the various U.S. groups involved in men's issues to come together. I wasn't involved, but I heard that a major problem was that many of the groups would cooperate only on the basis that other groups would join their organizations, not that an umbrella group would be formed to take in all the groups. The only thing on which there was widespread agreement was that men were discriminated against in health matters. The Men's Health Network was formed, and has done good work in getting more attention -- and funding -- devoted to such matters as prostate cancer. >>>>>>[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > warriors on behalf of their own sex. Notions of gallantry are another > element. Additionally, and more likely, the men that assault other men's human rights do so for the same reason. Typical animal behavior. > One thing that needs to be done is for men to overcome their > reluctance to speak out about discrimination against men in such areas > as family law, health, and the media. My attitude is that, if > speaking out turns off some women, then so be it. Women who fail to > see the grotesque bias against men in so many areas are not worth > cultivating anyway. But let THEM experience sufferage from the same issues and suddenly they have a different (bittersweet) attitude about it. A recent immigration issue comes to mind. A local government attempted to make it against the law to provide housing to illegal immigrants. The ACLU QUICKLY intervened which ultimately killed the proposal. Thing is, their actions of protecting the illegals resulted in protecting landlords from prosecution for renting to such illegals. Needless to say, they ACLU was not too excited about it since they hate landlords. Note: This very same government had absolutely NO problem selling utilities to the illegals! The hypocrite meter goes off the scale. > Interestingly enough, there was an attempt several years ago > to get all the various U.S. groups involved in men's issues to come [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > good work in getting more attention -- and funding -- devoted to such > matters as prostate cancer. Women's health care by far exceeds men's, as shown by the significant difference in average lifespan. Yet the government people STILL promote women's (as opposed to men's) healthcare, somehow proclaiming that not enough is being done for women. But what do you expect from a matriarch............ >>>>>>>[snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > enough is being done for women. But what do you expect from a > matriarch............ And it's not limited to government. For an example, Coca-Cola is promoting women's heart health with their diet Coke as if men didn't have heart disease or die from it. (Like breast and prostate cancer, the numbers are similar) Just about everywhere one looks, there are incentives, promotions and events slated for women, women's health and the like, at best only a very few for men. The only way I know to fight sexism from corporations is to boycott their products and write an occasional letter of disapproval of their actions to them. I don't have a problem with coke funding research for heart health, I just think promoting women's health is sexist since it touches men as well and in nearly equal numbers. (I suppose the fact that more women are obese has something to do with Coca Cola choosing diet coke as their product to promote it, it is, after all, just a grab for money). Nearly every accidental work-place injury and death is to men yet no one notices. Can you imagine the uproar if 90-some percent of those killed in workplace accidents were women? Phil #3 [snip] > And it's not limited to government. For an example, Coca-Cola is promoting > women's heart health with their diet Coke as if men didn't have heart [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Phil #3 Here's a thought.. sue the bastards. Class action suits are great for this and can even garner considerable media coverage. OK, so early on a lot of pinheads may laugh and make jokes, so what. After men start winning these suits, the laughter will stop and people will sit up and take notice that men are sick and tired of being the brunt of all ills of women. Whenever a company, or the government, moves to promote anything that (real or imagined) appears to benefit only women and excludes men, in any way, shape or form - sue them. After a while they'll get the idea that men are no longer going to take it in the shorts, nor stand for being told to "Man up" when they have been/are being disadvantaged. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > in the shorts, nor stand for being told to "Man up" when they have > been/are being disadvantaged. Private entities can give whatever they what to whomever they choose. That is part of free enterprise but I don't have to participate in their bigotry and can refuse to purchase their product/service. The government, however is a different case in that we are forced to contribute; but one can hardly expect fairness from an entity that is part of the system of the entity one is suing. It would have been like Jews suing Hitler in the late 1930's and '40's. Phil #3 >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > late 1930's and '40's. > Phil #3 Now THAT'S an understatement! >>>>>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Phil #3 Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K. [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?] >>>>>>[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting > welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?] Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted. Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they can, while they are able. Phil #3 >>>>>>>[snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > can, while they are able. > Phil #3 Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises them determines their general behavior as adults. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates. >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises > them determines their general behavior as adults. Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example. Are there exceptions > to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's > example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers > that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money > and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that > the "child support" system perpetuates. Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and ridiculous. If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with child support learn a little about child psychology. >>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model is almost always > the example. I was making reference to principles, NOT role models. > Are there exceptions >> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and > ridiculous. Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on. > If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with child > support learn a little about child psychology. Welcome back! >> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that >> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I was making reference to principles, NOT role models. Principles come from role models. >> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and >> ridiculous. > > Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on. I already did, if you leave your son without a role model he will find his own male role model and you will have no say in the matter. >>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if >>> I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Principles come from role models. Such "role model", to use your term, being the mother. To proclaim that one has to witness someone else committing a crime before they are willing to do the same is absurd, to say the least. >>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and >>> ridiculous. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I already did, if you leave your son without a role model he will find his > own male role model and you will have no say in the matter. Not necessarily. Absolutely nothing says that any such "role model" MUST be male. Again, the primary influence on a child is the mother. >>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that >>>> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > To proclaim that one has to witness someone else committing a crime > before they are willing to do the same is absurd, to say the least. "Such" role model is rarely if ever the mother, boys seek out and find male role models close to 100% of the time. If the role model is a criminal it is possible that the kid will emulate that, kids don't just walk out of sunday school and start selling coke, they get indoctrinated first. The same with a shiftless loser role model, the kids have to give up hundreds of times before they become shiftless losers. >>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and >>>> ridiculous. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not necessarily. Absolutely nothing says that any such "role model" MUST > be male. Again, the primary influence on a child is the mother. (Such)Male role models are always male, boys don't chose their moms to be their male role model no matter how much influence she has on them. >>>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that >>>>> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > "Such" role model is rarely if ever the mother, Nonsense. Boys, by FAR, learn from their mothers more than from anybody else. And so do girls. > boys seek out and find male role models close to 100% of the time. If the > role model is a criminal it is possible that the kid will emulate that, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (Such)Male role models are always male, boys don't chose their moms to be > their male role model no matter how much influence she has on them. Your twist is getting progressively tighter. Never have I claimed that "male" role models are mothers, NEVER. But nice try. >>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > > Welcome back! Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he. For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from being part of the problem/solution. You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by keeping them stoked. Phil #3 >>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > > Phil #3 What I am trying to understand is why such role model MUST be male. Apparently, everything that I learned from women was just a figment of my imagination. The teacher was really a man. In drag ya suppose? >>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > Apparently, everything that I learned from women was just a figment of > my imagination. The teacher was really a man. In drag ya suppose? "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model. >>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 140 lines] > > "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model. Not necessarily. There are some social science experts who conclude teenage gang members become the surrogate male role models when fathers are absent. IOW - The role models are boys who have yet to experience any adult male situations. >> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model. > > Not necessarily. There are some social science experts who conclude > teenage gang members become the surrogate male role models when fathers > are absent. IOW - The role models are boys who have yet to experience > any adult male situations. I stand corrected, and those teenagers fall into the category of male role models who prey on kids without male role models. >>> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I stand corrected, and those teenagers fall into the category of male role > models who prey on kids without male role models. Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents. Nearly half of all women do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to effectively raise children. This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women, and 58% of American Indian/Alaskan Native women. When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any bio-fathers or male role models to raise children. Your comments about men are not consistent with the social science research. It's women who reject the male role model in raising their children. >>>> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to > effectively raise children. I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men and women. I am pretty sure I could have raised my kids better alone if my wife was a welfare mother or a drunk. Since she isn't it was nice doing it as a team. It is possible that those in the 42% feel that their exes are a detriment rather than a help. I can certainly see how raising a kid alone is easier than raising a kid with a shiftless loser. > This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down > further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not > necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women, and 58% > of American Indian/Alaskan Native women. Makes perfect sense when you look at the fathers in welfare neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble than help. > When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any > bio-fathers or male role models to raise children. > > Your comments about men are not consistent with the social science > research. It's women who reject the male role model in raising their > children. What comments about men would those be? In this thread I said that boys need and find male role models to emulate, and that it is very unlikely that a boy would choose his mother as his role model. That set off defensive rants from the worst role models around. It is nearly impossible to "reject the male role model" when a boy is growing up, they need them and they will usually find them. It can be a soccer coach or a drug dealer, but they will find one. >>>>> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > detriment rather than a help. I can certainly see how raising a kid alone > is easier than raising a kid with a shiftless loser. Another bad assumption on your part. "Thinking" about parenting situations is not the same as FACTS. The 42% is a percentage of women not men and women. The statisitc for men is 26% of men believe a man can raise a child without the help of the other parent. IOW - Mne are less likely to believe they can parent on their own. >> This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down >> further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Makes perfect sense when you look at the fathers in welfare neigborhoods, > they are usually more trouble than help. Nice spin! But the welfare neighborhoods are where the mothers have had unwed pregnancies in huge numbers and don't believe a father was necessary to raise their children so they pump out kid after kid with multiple bio-fathers. >> When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any >> bio-fathers or male role models to raise children. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and they will usually find them. It can be a soccer coach or a drug > dealer, but they will find one. I agree with your concept. But what you are failing to understand is the void in these children's lives where there is no established male role model is created by their mothers rejecting the need for male role models. My point is the lack of male role models is due to mother attitudes rather than father neglect. It is mothers' beliefs and behaviors that causes the search for a substitute role model. > Another bad assumption on your part. "Thinking" about parenting > situations is not the same as FACTS. Okay then, it is a fact that I would have done better raising my kids alone as opposed to raising them with a drunk mother. Thankfully I was never forced to make that choice. > The 42% is a percentage of women > not men and women. The statisitc for men is 26% of men believe a man > can raise a child without the help of the other parent. IOW - Mne are > less likely to believe they can parent on their own. Until they need to do it, they won't know. Age 0 - 3 would be nearly impossible for a guy with a job, so I would answer no to that question too. It would be a lot easier after age 5. >>> This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it >>> down further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > necessary to raise their children so they pump out kid after kid with > multiple bio-fathers. Depends on the father, if the father is more trouble than help then the mother is better off alone. Pretty simple really. Doesn't matter if the woman pumps out 10 kids or 1. In some cases the biological father is a drug dealer or a gang member so when the kid goes looking for a role model he gets the whole package. >>> When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any >>> bio-fathers or male role models to raise children. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > attitudes rather than father neglect. It is mothers' beliefs and > behaviors that causes the search for a substitute role model. It can be both, it can also be that the male role model is a shiftless loser and that results in the boys becoming shiftless losers. Even in cases where women reject male role models, the kids want one, look for one and usually find one. Plenty of boys seek out their fathers when they need a role model even if it is against the wishes of the mother. Others will go to a soccer coach or a car thief. I'm not trying to establish blame, I don't care if people raise f.cked up kids. I am merely pointing out to someone who claimed his kids were f.cked up that boys emulate their male role models and rarely try to emulate their mothers. On Sep 15, 3:08 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > I don't care if people raise f.cked up kids. Disgraceful. You sound to be a poor role model yourself, with attitudes like that. > On Sep 15, 3:08 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>I don't care if people raise f.cked up kids. > > Disgraceful. You sound to be a poor role model yourself, with > attitudes like that. Yeah, I should raise your stupid kids too, since you don't seem to accept any responsibility. On Sep 15, 11:48 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > > On Sep 15, 3:08 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yeah, I should raise your stupid kids too, since you don't seem to > accept any responsibility. You can stay away from my kids, XXX. > On Sep 15, 11:48 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You can stay away from my kids, XXX. I'll just continue to pay my taxes and you can make sure they get the food stamps they need. They can be chips off the old block. On Sep 14, 7:23 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>>> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > exes are a detriment rather than a help. I can certainly see how raising > a kid alone is easier than raising a kid with a shiftless loser. And once again, according to XXX's OPINION, the FACTS should be interpreted to mean that, although the WOMEN have the opinion that men are unnecessary, IT MUST BE BECAUSE THE MEN ARE LOSERS! <chuckle> Surprise, surprise. > > This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down > > further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Makes perfect sense when you look at the fathers in welfare > neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble than help. CITE? CITE? Where's your cite for this???? (Or is it just you OPINION?) > > When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any > > bio-fathers or male role models to raise children. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they need them and they will usually find them. It can be a soccer coach > or a drug dealer, but they will find one.- CITE? CITE? >>I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men >>and women. I am pretty sure I could have raised my kids better alone if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are unnecessary, IT MUST BE BECAUSE THE MEN ARE LOSERS! <chuckle> > Surprise, surprise. Again you are telling me what I said and getting it wrong, nice work. Maybe you can try to be honest for one whole post. On Sep 15, 4:46 am, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men > >>and women. I am pretty sure I could have raised my kids better alone if [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Again you are telling me what I said and getting it wrong, nice work. > Maybe you can try to be honest for one whole post Here are 2 quotes from you about why 42% of women feel that they can raise their children better without the children's fathers: "It is possible that those in the 42% feel that their exes are a detriment rather than a help. I can certainly see how raising a kid alone is easier than raising a kid with a shiftless loser." "Makes perfect sense when you look at the fathers in welfare neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble than help." Are you not saying that the women prefer to raise the children alone because the fathers are losers? Because you most certainly are not saying that the women should make sure the children have their fathers in their lives. And you are not saying that the women, perhaps, are choosing unwisely. The "fathers as losers" theme seems to be predominant. >>Again you are telling me what I said and getting it wrong, nice work. >>Maybe you can try to be honest for one whole post > > Here are 2 quotes from you about why 42% of women feel that they can > raise their children better without the children's fathers: Here is your lie. The actual quote from Bob was: Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents. As well as, not better than. To which my response made perfect sense. If the mother or father is a shiftless loser then he or she will be a detriment rather than a benefit. The difference between the men's 26% and women's 42% could be the first 3 years when the kids are more dependent on their mothers. Either way, the answer to that question depends on the partner. 2 good parents will be much better than one, but one good parent and one abusive alcoholic will not be. > "It is possible that those in the 42% feel that their > exes are a detriment rather than a help. I can certainly see how [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > choosing unwisely. The "fathers as losers" theme seems to be > predominant. I am not saying that women prefer to raise the children alone, I said that according to the stats posted by Bob, 42% believe that they CAN do it just as well. One possibility for believing that could be that the father is a loser (see Phil as an example). I am also saying that whatever the mother tries to do the boys will find their own male role models, for better or worse. The father that I call a loser is one poster here who takes my opinion personally and gets defensive immediately. I can see how his ex would want to keep an angry hypersensitive douchebag like him away from the kids as much as possible. I am also saying that if the mother is a loser the father might be doing his kids a favor by raising the kids alone. All as a response to Bob's statistics. The question asked was CAN you raise a kid as well without your partner, that question is 100% dependent on the person's partner. Can you row a boat better alone or with a partner? What would the answer to that question be? It would be a lot easier to have a conversation if you stopped trying to twist the meanings by changing words around and trying to put words in my mouth. On Sep 15, 6:15 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>Again you are telling me what I said and getting it wrong, nice work. > >>Maybe you can try to be honest for one whole post [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > it just as well. One possibility for believing that could be that the > father is a loser (see Phil as an example). OK--42% of women believe that they can raise children as well as a mom- dad partnership. Nearly 50% of women feel that fathers are basically irrelevant. You say that they may feel that the fathers are lowlifes, and not suitable to be around the children. Nearly 50% of men are losers? Now, really, XXX, do you believe that all of these women are categorizing the fathers of their children correctly? Or are there other reason that it would be ok for women to raise their children without their fathers? I'm looking for your opinion here. And, just so you'll know, I do not agree with you that Phil is an example of a loser dad. Despite the fact that he was permitted little relationship with his sons, he never failed to pay court ordered child support, and never walked away from them voluntarily. I am also saying that > whatever the mother tries to do the boys will find their own male role > models, for better or worse. The father that I call a loser is one > poster here who takes my opinion personally and gets defensive > immediately. I can see how his ex would want to keep an angry > hypersensitive douchebag like him away from the kids as much as possible. I don't disagree with you about children finding male role models. What I want to know is what you see as the responsibility of the MOTHER who has chosen to raise her children without the father in how the children turn out. Does the mother have ANY responsibility for her children choosing to live the same welfare lifestyle that she provided them during their growing up years? > I am also saying that if the mother is a loser the father might be doing > his kids a favor by raising the kids alone. Undoubtedly. But unless the mother is enough of a loser for the court to want to intervene, it is more difficult for a father to take custody from the mother than it is for the mother to take custody from the father. That's just the way it is right now. All as a response to Bob's > statistics. The question asked was CAN you raise a kid as well without > your partner, that question is 100% dependent on the person's partner. > Can you row a boat better alone or with a partner? What would the answer > to that question be? Here is Bob's post: "Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents. Nearly half of all women do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to effectively raise children. This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women, and 58% of American Indian/Alaskan Native women. When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any bio-fathers or male role models to raise children. " Are you saying that the questions were just about what people consider to be possibile? Not about choices people acutally make? > It would be a lot easier to have a conversation if you stopped trying to > twist the meanings by changing words around and trying to put words in > my mouth. I ask questions. You don't answer them. I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from--but you don't answer questions. On Sep 15, 6:15 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > teachrmama wrote: > >>Again you are telling me what I said and getting it wrong, nice work. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > it just as well. One possibility for believing that could be that the > father is a loser (see Phil as an example). OK--42% of women believe that they can raise children as well as a mom- dad partnership. Nearly 50% of women feel that fathers are basically irrelevant. You say that they may feel that the fathers are lowlifes, and not suitable to be around the children. Nearly 50% of men are losers? Now, really, XXX, do you believe that all of these women are categorizing the fathers of their children correctly? Or are there other reason that it would be ok for women to raise their children without their fathers? I'm looking for your opinion here. And, just so you'll know, I do not agree with you that Phil is an example of a loser dad. Despite the fact that he was permitted little relationship with his sons, he never failed to pay court ordered child support, and never walked away from them voluntarily. I am also saying that > whatever the mother tries to do the boys will find their own male role > models, for better or worse. The father that I call a loser is one > poster here who takes my opinion personally and gets defensive > immediately. I can see how his ex would want to keep an angry > hypersensitive douchebag like him away from the kids as much as possible. I don't disagree with you about children finding male role models. What I want to know is what you see as the responsibility of the MOTHER who has chosen to raise her children without the father in how the children turn out. Does the mother have ANY responsibility for her children choosing to live the same welfare lifestyle that she provided them during their growing up years? > I am also saying that if the mother is a loser the father might be doing > his kids a favor by raising the kids alone. Undoubtedly. But unless the mother is enough of a loser for the court to want to intervene, ************ Mainly, a dope smokin', crack-whore, child battering, shoplifting, social misfit; and then MAYBE they will deny her custody. But usually it takes a judge NOT in their right frame of mind. ************** it is more difficult for a father to take custody from the mother than it is for the mother to take custody from the father. That's just the way it is right now. All as a response to Bob's > statistics. The question asked was CAN you raise a kid as well without > your partner, that question is 100% dependent on the person's partner. > Can you row a boat better alone or with a partner? What would the answer > to that question be? Here is Bob's post: "Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents. Nearly half of all women do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to effectively raise children. This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women, and 58% of American Indian/Alaskan Native women. When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any bio-fathers or male role models to raise children. " Are you saying that the questions were just about what people consider to be possibile? Not about choices people acutally make? > It would be a lot easier to have a conversation if you stopped trying to > twist the meanings by changing words around and trying to put words in > my mouth. I ask questions. You don't answer them. I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from--but you don't answer questions. >> > Are you not saying that ..... > > OK--42% of women believe that they can raise children as well as a mom- > dad partnership. Nearly 50% of women feel that fathers are basically > irrelevant. Nobody said that. > You say that they may feel that the fathers are lowlifes, > and not suitable to be around the children. Nearly 50% of men are > losers? They MAY feel that. They also may feel that THEIR partners don't help them with raising their kids. > Now, really, XXX, do you believe that all of these women are > categorizing the fathers of their children correctly? Did I say that somewhere or are you just learning tricks from other posters? > Or are there > other reason that it would be ok for women to raise their children > without their fathers? I'm looking for your opinion here. there are hundreds of situations where people will raise kids on their own, the question was CAN you do it and 42% of the women said they could. They may be right or wrong but whether they are right or wrong depends 100% on their partners. > I don't disagree with you about children finding male role models. > What I want to know is what you see as the responsibility of the > MOTHER who has chosen to raise her children without the father in how > the children turn out. Does the mother have ANY responsibility for > her children choosing to live the same welfare lifestyle that she > provided them during their growing up years? I would still say that boys will find male role models, a welfare mom is likely to expose her kids to male role models who live the same welfare lifestyle. If that is the situation I still think that boys will emulate their male role model rather than their mother. On Sep 15, 11:02 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >> > Are you not saying that ..... > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > lifestyle. If that is the situation I still think that boys will emulate > their male role model rather than their mother. *****What is the mother's responsibility in this? Does the mother have ANY responsibility? > I would still say that boys will find male role models, a welfare mom is > likely to expose her kids to male role models who live the same welfare > lifestyle. If that is the situation I still think that boys will emulate > their male role model rather than their mother. While I will agree young people will seek out male role models where the bio-father is out of the picture, the problem is they are kids not equipped to pick a positive role model. My previous example of young boys using older gang members as their role models is one of the negative consequences that can occur. Another example would be a young girl who trusts her mothers boyfriend and ends up being sexually abused. Typically, the mother, who is hopefully more mature, will select the male role model whom they want their children to emulate. The term "male role model" is meant to describe an older male, like a grandpa or uncle, who will instill positive values into the children's lives. > On Sep 15, 6:15 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > raise > children. Complete misreading of the stat, first of all it is 42% not nearly half and 2nd it says nothing about the need for a father figure, it only shows the opinion of 42% of the women that they could raise a child as well alone as with their partner. It does not say that they believe biological fathers or father figures are unnecessary, only that they believe they can raise a child as well alone as with a partner. In order to arrive at that conclusion they will have to conclude that THEIR partner will contribute nothing to the team. > Are you saying that the questions were just about what people consider > to be possibile? Not about choices people acutally make? That was the question didn't you read it after I corrected your alteration of the original quote? > I ask questions. You don't answer them. I'm trying to figure out > where you are coming from--but you don't answer questions. You changed the words around to alter the meaning of the questions in this very post, if I have to fix your dishonest questions every time you post I don't take your questions seriously. You also try to misrepresent and change the meanings of everything you read in your little questions. Are you trying to claim you are just asking curious questions with no desire to steer the thread to another topic or distract from the subject? Excuse me if I find that impossible to believe. On Sep 15, 10:50 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > > On Sep 15, 6:15 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > to arrive at that conclusion they will have to conclude that THEIR > partner will contribute nothing to the team. ****Uh--that's Bob's post cut and pasted. I didn't change anything in it.**** > > Are you saying that the questions were just about what people consider > > to be possibile? Not about choices people acutally make? > > That was the question didn't you read it after I corrected your > alteration of the original quote? ****Too, too funny. "It's about what they feel they CAN do, not about choices they will make." Don't you think it is sad that anyone feels that the other parent is so unnecessary in the grand scheme of things that they can do an equally good job without that person? > > I ask questions. You don't answer them. I'm trying to figure out > > where you are coming from--but you don't answer questions. > > You changed the words around to alter the meaning of the questions in > this very post, *** The words in Bob's post? That was cut and paste. I didn't change it al all. Just cut and pasted. >> "Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one >> parent can [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > conclusion they will have to conclude that THEIR partner will contribute > nothing to the team. I thought the statistics I posted were very telling. I described the 42% result as being nearly half because the race component was such a significant factor. All of the non-white women in the race breakdown believed 58% or more of all women could raise children with only one parent. That stat drops below 50% when white women are included. Parents in these social science surveys include biological parents, step parents, and father figures. Interestingly, 44% of female parents believed they can raise children effectively as a single parent. The stat drops to 42% when non-parent females are included in the survey results. Your comments about father figures being pursued by children limits the discussion to occassional adult-child interaction and that doesn't mean saying hello to mom's boyfriend in the morning. Unfortunately, parental resources (money and time) are much more important in providing for children's needs. That is the entire concept behind CS awarded to divorced, separated, or never married mothers. But the child custody orders remove much of the "time" factors supplied by fathers. On Sep 15, 6:15 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > teachrmama wrote: > >>Again you are telling me what I said and getting it wrong, nice work. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > it just as well. One possibility for believing that could be that the > father is a loser (see Phil as an example). OK--42% of women believe that they can raise children as well as a mom- dad partnership. Nearly 50% of women feel that fathers are basically irrelevant. You say that they may feel that the fathers are lowlifes, and not suitable to be around the children. Nearly 50% of men are losers? Now, really, XXX, do you believe that all of these women are categorizing the fathers of their children correctly? Or are there other reason that it would be ok for women to raise their children without their fathers? I'm looking for your opinion here. And, just so you'll know, I do not agree with you that Phil is an example of a loser dad. Despite the fact that he was permitted little relationship with his sons, he never failed to pay court ordered child support, and never walked away from them voluntarily. I am also saying that > whatever the mother tries to do the boys will find their own male role > models, for better or worse. The father that I call a loser is one > poster here who takes my opinion personally and gets defensive > immediately. I can see how his ex would want to keep an angry > hypersensitive douchebag like him away from the kids as much as possible. I don't disagree with you about children finding male role models. What I want to know is what you see as the responsibility of the MOTHER who has chosen to raise her children without the father in how the children turn out. Does the mother have ANY responsibility for her children choosing to live the same welfare lifestyle that she provided them during their growing up years? > I am also saying that if the mother is a loser the father might be doing > his kids a favor by raising the kids alone. Undoubtedly. But unless the mother is enough of a loser for the court to want to intervene, it is more difficult for a father to take custody from the mother than it is for the mother to take custody from the father. That's just the way it is right now. All as a response to Bob's > statistics. The question asked was CAN you raise a kid as well without > your partner, that question is 100% dependent on the person's partner. > Can you row a boat better alone or with a partner? What would the answer > to that question be? Here is Bob's post: "Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents. Nearly half of all women do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to effectively raise children. This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women, and 58% of American Indian/Alaskan Native women. When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any bio-fathers or male role models to raise children. " Are you saying that the questions were just about what people consider to be possibile? Not about choices people acutally make? > It would be a lot easier to have a conversation if you stopped trying to > twist the meanings by changing words around and trying to put words in > my mouth. I ask questions. You don't answer them. I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from--but you don't answer questions. ****************************************** Answers would prove something XXX would rather stay hidden, IMO. Phil #3 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 140 lines] > > "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model. That's right. I forgot that boys are NOT males. Anyway, I like your straw man. Either that, or my use of the word "such" confused you. Perhaps the word "a" would have been clearer. Anyone comprehending my post in its ENTIRETY, thus keeping it in context, will find the word "such" to be appropriate. [For what it's worth, my use of the word "such" is in response to your use of the term "role model". You, not I, introduced the term.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > [For what it's worth, my use of the word "such" is in response to your > use of the term "role model". You, not I, introduced the term.] You really want to be taken seriously don't you? I've tried and I think it is impossible. >>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > > Phil #3 Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if you weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in fatherless households boys will seek out and emulate a male role model, is many cases these male role models are men who prey on fatherless boys. The welfare mom who sits around and lets her kid come home with new sneakers and a pocket full of cash is no help, but she is not the role model. You are purposely ignorant because admitting the simple truth puts a lot of responsibility on you, and that just won't do among you guys, this is a responsibility free zone, everything is someone else's fault. >>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > responsibility on you, and that just won't do among you guys, this is a > responsibility free zone, everything is someone else's fault. You're a fuckin' fruitcake, XXX. You said nothing of substance, just more anti-male lies. You don't even realize that many children don't have a male role model in their lives and of those who do, many of the so-called role models are like you, which explains why so many boys turn into criminals, drug pushers and addicts and generally worthless individuals. Phil #3 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 155 lines] > pushers and addicts and generally worthless individuals. > Phil #3 I've said what the rest of the world understands without having to hear it from a stranger. I'm sure some of you already know these things but need to deny them in order to keep the agenda going. You are a guy who raised 2 lazy uneducated blobs trying to convince a guy who raised 2 highly educated children and one lawyer. It seems you really don't understand how the world works. Considering the source your lame insults really are pretty funny. How big a shitbag are you that you couldn't get even ONE kid to get an education or a decent job? After your idiotic insults and impotent protests you are now agreeing with my original statement. Nice work stupid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 160 lines] > lazy uneducated blobs trying to convince a guy who raised 2 highly > educated children and one lawyer. Uh oh, "lawyer". That says it ALL! > It seems you really don't understand how the world works. Considering the > source your lame insults really are pretty funny. How big a shitbag are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > After your idiotic insults and impotent protests you are now agreeing with > my original statement. Nice work stupid. > Uh oh, "lawyer". That says it ALL! You wonder why people don't take you seriously? >> Uh oh, "lawyer". That says it ALL! > > You wonder why people don't take you seriously? Hope you didn't hurt your arm in patting yourself on the back like that. Phil #3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 166 lines] > After your idiotic insults and impotent protests you are now agreeing with > my original statement. Nice work stupid. 1) The "rest of the world" is more than the voices in your head telling you that men are evil and women are saints. 2) The only person that "knows" anything you post is you and that is based on nothing less than anti-male prejudice. 3) You are a liar. I didn't get the opportunity to raise my kids; their mother did which is why the turned out the way they did, even though you flatly refuse to accept the fact that some women are as worthless as some men. 4) Like I said before, you're a fuckin' fruitcake and you prove it with each post you make. Phil #3 >> After your idiotic insults and impotent protests you are now agreeing >> with my original statement. Nice work stupid. > > 1) The "rest of the world" is more than the voices in your head telling > you that men are evil and women are saints. 2nd grade insults? You really are falling apart aren't you? > 2) The only person that "knows" anything you post is you and that is > based on nothing less than anti-male prejudice. Yet you have no answer to any of it. You are going to deny that boys find male role models because it means that you are a failure again. At least with your little support group you can count on a few people to pretend you aren't a complete loser and failure. > 3) You are a liar. I didn't get the opportunity to raise my kids; their > mother did which is why the turned out the way they did, even though you > flatly refuse to accept the fact that some women are as worthless as > some men. I never refused to accept anything, you are so defensive about being a complete loser that you added that bit yourself. I stated (accurately) that boys seek and usually find male role models and rarely is a mother one of their role models. The rest of what you read into what I say is just your own defensive knee jerk reaction whenever anyone doesn't agree with your blanket "blame other people" view of reality. > 4) Like I said before, you're a fuckin' fruitcake and you prove it with > each post you make. > > Phil #3 And you prove how much of an impotent hyperdefensive loser you are. I think I'd rather be a fruitcake. On Sep 15, 12:21 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: <snip for length> > > 3) You are a liar. I didn't get the opportunity to raise my kids; their > > mother did which is why the turned out the way they did, even though you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > just your own defensive knee jerk reaction whenever anyone doesn't agree > with your blanket "blame other people" view of reality. It's pretty easy to state that mothers are not *male* role modesl for their children. Are you saying that mothers are not role models *in any way* for their boys? Are you indicating that mothers do not have any responsibility for how thier boys turn out? (If they do have responsibility, what would that responsibility be?) > It's pretty easy to state that mothers are not *male* role modesl for > their children. Are you saying that mothers are not role models *in > any way* for their boys? In an old fashioned way I believe that guys use their mothers as a role model for the women in their lives later on, they don't start acting like them but they do feel more comfortable with a girlfriend or wife who resembles that model. That usually translates into a similar home life later on and a wife with similar ideas about raising kids. In extreme cases it can also lead a kid to grow up and decide he never wants a woman in his life but that will usually be an extreme case. > Are you indicating that mothers do not have any responsibility for how > thier boys turn out? (If they do have responsibility, what would that > responsibility be?) In my case, music, religion, education (up to college), relationships with women, home life, fashion, nutrition and general good manners. If I raised my kids alone they would have missed out on a lot of that. On Sep 15, 6:29 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > > It's pretty easy to state that mothers are not *male* role modesl for > > their children. Are you saying that mothers are not role models *in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > with women, home life, fashion, nutrition and general good manners. If I > raised my kids alone they would have missed out on a lot of that. Well, that's very nice, XXX. But, in the case of a woman who shuts the father out of the children's lives, and raises them on welfare. If the children embrace the welfare lifestyle for themselves as adults, does the mother have no responsibility for this? On Sep 15, 6:29 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > teachrmama wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > with women, home life, fashion, nutrition and general good manners. If I > raised my kids alone they would have missed out on a lot of that. Well, that's very nice, XXX. But, in the case of a woman who shuts the father out of the children's lives, and raises them on welfare. If the children embrace the welfare lifestyle for themselves as adults, does the mother have no responsibility for this? No, she doesn't. Afterall, it MUST have been a "male role model". :) >> It's pretty easy to state that mothers are not *male* role modesl for >> their children. Are you saying that mothers are not role models *in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > resembles that model. That usually translates into a similar home life > later on and a wife with similar ideas about raising kids. You just supported my claim that you previously refuted: "Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that the 'child support' system perpetuates." Here was your response to my claim: "Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and ridiculous." > In extreme cases it can also lead a kid to grow up and decide he never > wants a woman in his life but that will usually be an extreme case. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > women, home life, fashion, nutrition and general good manners. If I raised > my kids alone they would have missed out on a lot of that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 170 lines] > 1) The "rest of the world" is more than the voices in your head telling > you that men are evil and women are saints. Which begs the question: If a man gets a sex change and becomes a woman, will he suddenly become good and no longer be evil? > 2) The only person that "knows" anything you post is you and that is based > on nothing less than anti-male prejudice. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Phil #3 >>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > responsibility on you, and that just won't do among you guys, this is a > responsibility free zone, everything is someone else's fault. And in the case of how a mother chooses to raise her child, it's the FATHER'S fault........... >> Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if >> you weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And in the case of how a mother chooses to raise her child, it's the > FATHER'S fault........... Nice misread, I'm not sure anymore if you are just pathologically dishonest or stupid. Seems to be a healthy dose of both. Maybe you can show your work on this one. >>> Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if you >>> weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Nice misread, So you are actually saying our position is that everything is NOT someone else's fault? > I'm not sure anymore if you are just pathologically dishonest or stupid. > Seems to be a healthy dose of both. Maybe you can show your work on this > one. >>> Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if you >>> weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > dishonest or stupid. Seems to be a healthy dose of both. Maybe you can > show your work on this one. I think he saw the unspoken meaning rather well. When the kids turn out badly, the mother, who lives with and perpetuates the lifestyle is never responsible, it's some "male" whether new boyfriend or local drug pusher and especially the father whether allowed to have a relationship with the kids or not. I don't think I've see such rampant sexism since Stumpy haunted this NG. Phil #3 [snip] Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again? > [snip] > > Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again? You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time to time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it. >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth when > it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it. Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both feet into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the pleasure of not meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane, ridiculous, incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly incredible. Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through whatever fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with factual, verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it may be a very long wait before you get round to it. >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it may be a very > long wait before you get round to it. Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little bit more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You tell me what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up. >>>> [snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You tell me > what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up. You've been proven wrong on every "fact" you ever posted. You refuse to learn because it doesn't fit your agenda. Phil #3 >>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Phil #3 Yet you are unable to show me a factual error in any of my posts, you keep claiming that I am incorrect but you never back it up, you just keep whining and pretending all of your problems are someone else's fault. You are probably as incapable of learning as everything else. On Sep 14, 5:38 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>>>> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > keep whining and pretending all of your problems are someone else's > fault. You are probably as incapable of learning as everything else You could try proving the "facts" you claim to be true. I haven't seen any references. Wait---no--don't tell me. You are going to allow me to "seek out" the facts on my own, in order that I may participate in my own education-- right? <chuckle> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > whining and pretending all of your problems are someone else's fault. You > are probably as incapable of learning as everything else. Correction there shitface, you've been shown to be a bigot and a liar with facts that you simply deny. Phil #3 >> Yet you are unable to show me a factual error in any of my posts, you >> keep claiming that I am incorrect but you never back it up, you just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Phil #3 Not yet and certainly not by you. You just keep claiming that you've proven something, you never actually prove anything except what a dismal failure you are. Keep up the good work, dispense advice to your downtrodden friends, maybe they can join you in your miserable loser lifestyle. On Sep 15, 12:23 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >> Yet you are unable to show me a factual error in any of my posts, you > >> keep claiming that I am incorrect but you never back it up, you just [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > downtrodden friends, maybe they can join you in your miserable loser > lifestyle. And what have you proven, XXX? I haven't seen any cites yet........ > On Sep 15, 12:23 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > And what have you proven, XXX? I haven't seen any cites yet........ Shocking, not one new idea, just the same old nag. Oddly enough I haven't seen anything from you except attempts to change the subject and twisting words around to create distractions. Any opinions? So far I haven't see one. On Sep 15, 6:31 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > > On Sep 15, 12:23 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > twisting words around to create distractions. Any opinions? So far I > haven't see one I haven't tried to share opinions, XXX. I'm trying to understand YOURS, now that you have admitted that they aare opinions rather than facts. >> On Sep 15, 12:23 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > words around to create distractions. Any opinions? So far I haven't see > one. You failed yet again to answer a simple question. Evade much? Phil #3 >>> Yet you are unable to show me a factual error in any of my posts, you >>> keep claiming that I am incorrect but you never back it up, you just [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > downtrodden friends, maybe they can join you in your miserable loser > lifestyle. Now re-read the last 5 words in my last sentence. You just proved it. Phil #3 >>>> [snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You tell me > what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up. "......the fathers in welfare neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble than help." "closer to 100% for men" do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to effectively raise children. >>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "......the fathers in welfare neigborhoods, they are usually more > trouble than help." Being unemployed and raised on welfare themselves means that they will cause more problems for the welfare moms than if they took responsibility. That is more of a problem with the welfare system than parents. > "closer to 100% for men" do not think a biological father or father > figure is necessary to effectively raise children. Did I say that? If I did show me where. >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > cause more problems for the welfare moms than if they took responsibility. > That is more of a problem with the welfare system than parents. Completely and conveniently overlooking the fact that these men were raised that way at the sole choice of the mother who also instilled a "gimme" attitude in them and failed to teach them a damed thing except the world owes them a living. >> "closer to 100% for men" do not think a biological father or father >> figure is necessary to effectively raise children. > > Did I say that? If I did show me where. sh.t, even showing you won't help because you'll find some way to slither around it by lying again. "I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men and women. " from news:h8mo59$vjp$6@news.eternal-september.org... You said that's what you think so now tell us how that isn't what you meant, that you were once again "misunderstood" you lying dirtbag. Phil #3 >> Being unemployed and raised on welfare themselves means that they will >> cause more problems for the welfare moms than if they took [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "gimme" attitude in them and failed to teach them a damed thing except > the world owes them a living. Not always at the sole choice of the mother, many fathers refuse to accept any responsibility and in welfare communities it is financially beneficial for a mother and father to keep the babydaddy out of the picture and off the paperwork. >>> "closer to 100% for men" do not think a biological father or father >>> figure is necessary to effectively raise children. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sh.t, even showing you won't help because you'll find some way to > slither around it by lying again. Liar, he cut out the part that REALLY shows what I said, I can see you are both ready to give up and admit you are wrong. Why else would you rely on such easily shown bullshit as your argument? > "I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men > and women. " from news:h8mo59$vjp$6@news.eternal-september.org... > You said that's what you think so now tell us how that isn't what you > meant, that you were once again "misunderstood" you lying dirtbag. No, what he did was outright lie in order to make is seem like I said something I didn't say. What I did say is that if asked that question most people would say yes they could raise a child without the other parent. For kids under 3 I would expect fewer guys to say they could raise the kids on their own. If the alternative was worse than raising the kids alone, I would expect every responsible parent to take that responsibility. For a guy who never trims posts you sure made a mess of this attempt to misrepresent what I said. >>> Being unemployed and raised on welfare themselves means that they will >>> cause more problems for the welfare moms than if they took [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for a mother and father to keep the babydaddy out of the picture and off > the paperwork. And a large number of those fathers who fail to accept any responsibility were raised by a single-mother on welfare; a perpetual circle. True that second and subsequent generations of welfare "families" have learned to scam the system. Don't overlook the fact that most fathers are forced out of the family and don't "refuse to accept any responsibility". Most children raised in poverty would be in poverty with both parents in the home. Poor mothers have children with poor fathers. Actually, in almost every case the mother was poorer than the father before entering into the relationship and the children were a meal ticket for them whether directly from dad or indirectly from dad filtered through the government. >>>> "closer to 100% for men" do not think a biological father or father >>>> figure is necessary to effectively raise children. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > responsibility. For a guy who never trims posts you sure made a mess of > this attempt to misrepresent what I said. Here is the quote in context: BOB: " Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents. Nearly half of all women do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to effectively raise children. YOU: "I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men and women." Then went on to tell about your feelings about how you feel your personal situation might have fared under different circumstances, which has nothing to do with it. Then you insuinuate that the 42% might believe the fathers are losers. They also might believe they were inseminated by aliens but the fact is not changed by what you *think* they might feel. By the way, anyone who thinks either parent's involvement is unnecessary is a fool. Phil #3 >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Being unemployed and raised on welfare themselves ...is an assumption. > means that they will cause more problems for the welfare moms than if they > took responsibility. That is more of a problem with the welfare system [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Did I say that? If I did show me where. Statement: "Nearly half of all women do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to effectively raise children." Your response: "I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men..." >>>> [snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You tell me > what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up. X, I want you to back up each and every claim you have ever made, are making now, and will ever make in the future. I also want you to separate each claim as fact or fiction (AKA your opinion). I want you to post sites, with direct inks to each article, to prove your claim/statements. The above has been requested of you in the past in various fashions, without exception, you have not responded in kind by providing the requested link(s) for independent verification. I myself have asked you to do so several times. And I have also asked you to show me exactly where, by whom, and on what date a given article was published at www.NYT.com that you've quoted from and you've never provided that information. Without providing the readers of the group with the ability to read the very same information (AKA the EXACT SAME article) you read and are then quoting, it is all but impossible to have a constructive debate on any subject with you. Hence, you come off as a lair and a charlatan. >>>>>>> [snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > they can, while they are able. > Phil #3 Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction. City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that. >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of > lifestyle. And you know they had a male role model how? > The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs, > collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty > rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers > (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as they > are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction. With all due respect, whatever are you talking about? > City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those > things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that. Some perhaps, but not necessarily all. >>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) >>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And you know they had a male role model how? Phil told us, do you purposely miss everything that doesn't support your rant? And being a cop is not much different than the lifestyle he describes so you can see the connection. >> The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs, >> collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > With all due respect, whatever are you talking about? Exactly the same thing you are, except you are 100% wrong so you might not get the point here. >> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those >> things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that. > > Some perhaps, but not necessarily all. If they are taught by their dads the odds are pretty good that they will. >>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement) >>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Phil told us, Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that leads you to believe so. > do you purposely miss everything that doesn't support your rant? And being > a cop is not much different than the lifestyle he describes so you can see [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Exactly the same thing you are, A CAREFUL review of my statements and yours will reveal that there is absolutely NO relationship between the two. > except you are 100% wrong so you might not get the point here. A claim based upon a false premise. >>> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those >>> things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that. >> >> Some perhaps, but not necessarily all. > > If they are taught by their dads the odds are pretty good that they will. > Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children > had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that > leads you to believe so. He said .. "(raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)" Look up restricted if you are still confused. And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my displeasure with their actions" If you've read his other posts you can see how he and his kids have a decent relationship despite the efforts of his ex. > A CAREFUL review of my statements and yours will reveal that there is > absolutely NO relationship between the two. Thats because you can't follow anything that doesn't agree with your agenda. You've already made that obvious. >> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children had >> a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that leads >> you to believe so. > > He said .. "(raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)" Look up > restricted if you are still confused. Since such restriction could be so much as allowing just ONE contact, then technically you could deduce that they had a male role model. The common understanding of a "role model", however, is one (especially when it concerns a father figure) in which the student has continued, uninhibited, regular contact; not some part time visitor. By the way, in case you were not aware, overlooking something is NOT the same as being confused. Look it up. > And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my displeasure > with their actions" That says nothing about any continued involvement. > If you've read his other posts you can see how he and his kids have a > decent relationship despite the efforts of his ex. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thats because you can't follow anything that doesn't agree with your > agenda. You've already made that obvious. Whether or not I can't follow anything that doesn't agree with my so-called "agenda" has no bearing on the fact that there is absolutely NO relationship between the two groups of statements. >>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it concerns a father figure) in which the student has continued, > uninhibited, regular contact; not some part time visitor. It can be either, the boys usually decide who their role model is and make it their business to be around him. > By the way, in case you were not aware, overlooking something is NOT the > same as being confused. Look it up. Sometimes one leads to the other. >> And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my >> displeasure with their actions" > > That says nothing about any continued involvement. No? then when and to whom is he voicing his displeasure? >>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It can be either, the boys usually decide who their role model is and make > it their business to be around him. In spite of the mother not allowing it? You are too supid to live. >> By the way, in case you were not aware, overlooking something is NOT the >> same as being confused. Look it up. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No? then when and to whom is he voicing his displeasure? You mean that by voicing my displeasure to my GROWN children AFTER custody ended somehow translates into continued involvement during their childhood years? Are you REALLY that stupid? Phil #3 >>>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his >>>>> children had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > In spite of the mother not allowing it? You are too supid to live. Especially in spite of the mother, you are just a huge f.cking liar. I had role models that my mother was dead set against, I managed to hang out with them and learn about smoking and drinking despite her best efforts. I guess your next claim will be that you never disobeyed your mother or did anything that she didn't approve first. More bullshit and deflection of your responsibility. You are just stupid enough to believe your own bullshit. I guess thats how you get to sleep at night. >> No? then when and to whom is he voicing his displeasure? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are you REALLY that stupid? > Phil #3 if the "kid" is 40, you've had 22 years to help them. In addition it is a lie that their mother was able to keep them away from you after the age of 14, that is just another example of you lying to deny responsibility for another failure. Do you wonder where your kids get it from? Its okay to fail as long as you have a ready excuse. Do you wonder why you are such a failure or do you really believe all of your excuses? >>>>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>>>>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > 14, that is just another example of you lying to deny responsibility for > another failure. How is this a lie? It's a fact for millions of fathers in the US today despite your ignornance of the sitiation. You really ought to learn about real life instead of the world you've created where the father is always to blame for the decisions and actions of the mother. >Do you wonder where your kids get it from? Its okay to fail as long as you >have a ready excuse. Do you wonder why you are such a failure or do you >really believe all of your excuses? So once again the mothers failure as a parent is my fault. Got it. Moron. Phil #3 >>>>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>>>>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > 14, that is just another example of you lying to deny responsibility for > another failure. Do you wonder where your kids get it from? Clearly, they get it from the father or some father figure because it is IMPOSSIBLE to get it from the mother. Do I get my prize now? > Its okay to fail as long as you have a ready excuse. Do you wonder why you > are such a failure or do you really believe all of your excuses? >>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It can be either, Then if it is the former, such "role model" influence is approximately ZERO. > the boys usually decide who their role model is and make it their business > to be around him. IF allowed by the mother. >> By the way, in case you were not aware, overlooking something is NOT the >> same as being confused. Look it up. > > Sometimes one leads to the other. And sometimes NOT. >>> And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my >>> displeasure with their actions" >> >> That says nothing about any continued involvement. > > No? No. > then when and to whom is he voicing his displeasure? Why don't you ask HIM? > Why don't you ask HIM? For one thing I don't expect him to tell the truth, for another I don't care that much. If he gets defensive about seeing himself in my posts that is just another one of his problems. All of your other questions were answered in detail in other posts, try to have an original thought. >> Why don't you ask HIM? > > For one thing I don't expect him to tell the truth, for another I don't > care that much. Apparently, you cared enough to ask. > If he gets defensive about seeing himself in my posts that is just another > one of his problems. All of your other questions were answered in detail > in other posts, try to have an original thought. Don't have to. >> Why don't you ask HIM? > > For one thing I don't expect him to tell the truth, for another I don't > care that much. If he gets defensive about seeing himself in my posts that > is just another one of his problems. All of your other questions were > answered in detail in other posts, try to have an original thought. You mean those were aimed at me, one of the many you now jack sh.t about but like to pretend you know everything? Phil #3 >> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children had >> a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that leads [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Thats because you can't follow anything that doesn't agree with your > agenda. You've already made that obvious. Such a sh.t-for-brains. My children are grown; the oldest being over 40. During the time they were living with their mother, my contact was restricted or eliminated by the mother. Since then, she cannot restrict either them or me or our actions, therefore we see each other more than we did then, however the damage had been accomplished WHILE LIVING WITH THEIR MOTHER. You should stop attacking men and defending women you know no better. You know absolutely none of the principals involved yet pretend you know all there is to know about the case based on nothing more than anti-male prejudice. I don't know where you're from but I can say without a doubt they sure grow 'em stupid there. Phil #3 >>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Phil #3 I just think you are a lying irresponsible a.shole, I have no interest in defending your welfare clan or putting down men. I can see from your posting that you are just a whiny irresponsible liar with an anger management problem and I would never give you the benefit of the doubt. The fact that you must realize what I figured out in 30 or so posts from you is what causes you to become hyper defensive and angry when I post something that disagrees with your version of reality. In this case you know that your lazy boobs didn't emulate their mother, just like every other boy in the world they had a male role model(s) to emulate. Of course you have no responsibility for any of their failures, or even your own for that matter, you are just a victim whining about how things didn't go his way. Now you have middle aged blobs for sons who refuse to accept any responsibility and are willing to live like housepets but NONE of that has anything to do with you or your parenting. Let me sum up everything you ever say about this subject .... BULLSHIT. >>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I just think you are a lying irresponsible a.shole, Of course, I'm a man. >I have no interest in defending your welfare clan or putting down men. Another lie. >I can see from your posting that you are just a whiny irresponsible liar >with an anger management problem and I would never give you the benefit of >the doubt. In other words, I'm a man. > The fact that you must realize what I figured out in 30 or so posts from > you is what causes you to become hyper defensive and angry when I post > something that disagrees with your version of reality. In this case you > know that your lazy boobs didn't emulate their mother, just like every > other boy in the world they had a male role model(s) to emulate. Gawd, can you be this stupid and still breathe? > Of course you have no responsibility for any of their failures, or even > your own for that matter, you are just a victim whining about how things > didn't go his way. Now you have middle aged blobs for sons who refuse to > accept any responsibility and are willing to live like housepets but NONE > of that has anything to do with you or your parenting. Let me sum up > everything you ever say about this subject .... BULLSHIT. Here again you indicate you know all about my personal situaion (without a clue, I might add) and intimate that men are responsible for women's behavior. Phil #3 >>>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>>>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > clue, I might add) and intimate that men are responsible for women's > behavior. Only because the moment they acknowledge any responsibility on the part of women, their entire argument comes crashing down. > Phil #3 >>>>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>>>>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > Only because the moment they acknowledge any responsibility on the part of > women, their entire argument comes crashing down. True. Accepting the results of women's behavior would mean an end to abortion-as-birth control, "no-fault divorce" and all the other woman only and pro-woman laws, rules and regulations. Women would have to take a step backward away from social and legal superiority. Phil #3 >> Phil #3 >>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Phil #3 Ever wonder where all the dirtbag "child support" people who forced your situation are now? I have a freind who was kicked out of his family by such thugs only to have the mother murder his son. But wait a minute, that cannot be possible since women can do no wrong. Anyway, he was not allowed to raise his orphaned daughter who turned out in a way that most folks would rather not associate with. Needless to say, the mother was incarcerated. Today, he has a pretty good, albeit strained, relationship with her; and most of the people who robbed her of a father are now dead! >>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children >>>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > incarcerated. Today, he has a pretty good, albeit strained, relationship > with her; and most of the people who robbed her of a father are now dead! One of those involved in our current anti-male society is vice president of the US. Phil #3 >>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > Some perhaps, but not necessarily all. I wonder what it's like to think one knows everything about any subject like XXX does. The truly amazing part is even s/he simply cannot be so stupid as to actually believe any of the sexist garbage s/he spews and still be able to feed and dress themselves. I suppose it is a case of making sh.t up as one goes. (You'll notice s/he never offers any sort of proof, evidence or anything else except personal bigotry). S/he seems to think that her/his imagination is more relivant than our experience. Phil #3 >>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > I wonder what it's like to think one knows everything about any subject > like XXX does. Better than knowing nothing and blaming everything on others, much better in fact. You should try it sometime. > The truly amazing part is even s/he simply cannot be so stupid as to > actually believe any of the sexist garbage s/he spews and still be able > to feed and dress themselves. Nothing sexist about boys seeking male role models and emulating them, unless you were raised under a rock and live in a cage you have seen the same thing I have and know it to be true. Obviously you are denying this simple, universal fact because it hurts your victimhood agenda and doesn't blame a problem on the courts, judges or some woman. > I suppose it is a case of making sh.t up as one goes. (You'll notice > s/he never offers any sort of proof, evidence or anything else except > personal bigotry). You need proof of this? Crack a psych 101 book and learn something. > S/he seems to think that her/his imagination is more relivant than our > experience. > Phil #3 Your experience has been sh.t, and it is as much your own fault as anyone else's. I use this info to raise kids who are not lazy losers, so far I am 3 for 3. Who would you listen to? A broken down whining mess whose kids are on the dole or the parent of college educated gainfully employed adults. Your experience is worthless to 99% of the world, nobody makes raising lazy kids a parenting goal. I know, I know, it wasn't your fault, their mother was mean to me, the judge made me pay support, the system is stacked against me whine whine whine .... Look how all that worked out for you. >>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > judge made me pay support, the system is stacked against me whine whine > whine .... Look how all that worked out for you. You know nothing of me yet claim to know much. You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and skin. Phil #3 > You know nothing of me yet claim to know much. > You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and skin. > > Phil #3 At least I raised my kids to be productive members of society, that makes me 1000 times more worthwhile than you. I claim to know what you have posted here, nothing more nothing less but you paint the picture of a lowlife with your posts. >> You know nothing of me yet claim to know much. >> You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and skin. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > posted here, nothing more nothing less but you paint the picture of a > lowlife with your posts. You said one was a lawyer, therefore you are a liar. Come to think of it, I doubt you even HAVE any children, being one yourself. Phil #3 >>> You know nothing of me yet claim to know much. >>> You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and skin. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Phil #3 If that makes the reality of your situation easier for you to bear then go ahead and believe that. How many semesters of college have you paid for? Ohhh thats right, your ex wouldn't let you encourage your children to educate themselves ..... what a shame, now instead of regular adults you have a pair of lazy day laborers who have to compete with mexicans and illegal immigrants for work. Do you know that a kid getting food stamps could easily get a college education free? Not only free but he would receive a stipend for expenses, of course you didn't know that because your ex wife wouldn't let you read a book and educating your kids is not your responsibility. >>>> You know nothing of me yet claim to know much. >>>> You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > your ex wife wouldn't let you read a book and educating your kids is not > your responsibility. Still pretending to know all about a situation you actually know nothing about, I see. For your information (I'm sure you'll claim I'm lying but without basis yet again) I begged my sons to go to college after they were old enough to leave. I offered to fully support them if they'd go to college but the mindset instilled by decades of living with a leech was more powerful. Naturally, it's somehow my fault though, right? Go ahead and pretend you know me, my ex and my kids. You only show your prejudice and ignorance. If you know me so well, what's my last name or any of the names or the quantity or sex of my children? What's my ex's name? How old are any of us (except the children whom I've told the oldest is over 40? Where did we live when married? Where does my ex live now? You see, you don't know jack. You just like to pretend to "have it all knowed up" and blame the father regardless. That my non-friend is sexism which is nothing less than outright bigotry. Phil #3 >> You know nothing of me yet claim to know much. >> You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and skin. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At least I raised my kids to be productive members of society, that makes > me 1000 times more worthwhile than you. You raised your kids ONLY because the mother/"child support" people ALLOWED you to raise them. Individual worthiness has ZERO to do with it. > I claim to know what you have posted here, nothing more nothing less but > you paint the picture of a lowlife with your posts. >>> You know nothing of me yet claim to know much. >>> You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and skin. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> I claim to know what you have posted here, nothing more nothing less but >> you paint the picture of a lowlife with your posts. If XXX is male, he doesn't have a clue about how truly powerless he is as regards the family or that the ONLY way a father can be a parent is by the mother's permission. If female, she is simply hiding behind the built-in sexism of the system. Phil #3 >>>> You know nothing of me yet claim to know much. >>>> You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Phil #3 The poster's proclamation is that if a woman kicks the father out of the family, that he is somehow deserving of it. And also claims that if a man does not mistreat the woman, then she will never give him the boot. If that was the case, then there could be NO crime victims since all actions toward another are deserving. It's no wonder such "child support" industry perpetuates, with this type of thinking. On Sep 12, 5:11 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their fathers? If the only contact they have with their fathers is the money that flows into the household via child support, they will emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent them from having any contact with their children? How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their children? >>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their >>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their > fathers? Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said in order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post on this lie. > If the only contact they have with their fathers is the > money that flows into the household via child support, they will > emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are > financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent > them from having any contact with their children? When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless. Reread what I wrote and give it another shot. > How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive > reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their > children? How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you left the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post? On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their > >>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - <chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post. "Boys emulate their fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of lifestyle" So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his childrfen? And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father, thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role model? > On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > <chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post. Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either didn't read my post or didn't understand it. > "Boys emulate their > fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of > lifestyle" So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said. > So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his > children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his > childrfen? I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent what I said to be that? What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense. > And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the > responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father, > thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role > model? What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read, thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said. >> On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent > what I said to be that? Nothing was made up. Apparently, you lack a fundamental understanding of the difference between a question and a statement. > What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is > that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What in god's name are you on about? Do you always answer a question with a question? The previous poster is "on about" a yes/no answer to a simple question. > Is this a chick thing where you can't have a conversation without making > things up and reading your own ideas into the things other people say? I > said exactly what you read, thats it, none of your nonsense is included in > what I said. > Nothing was made up. Apparently, you lack a fundamental understanding of > the difference between a question and a statement. Yes, her "questions" have no ulterior motive and never change the subject when she can't refute the topic of a post. > Do you always answer a question with a question? The previous poster is > "on about" a yes/no answer to a simple question. I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You can both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new whines for the group. >> Is this a chick thing where you can't have a conversation without >> making things up and reading your own ideas into the things other >> people say? I said exactly what you read, thats it, none of your >> nonsense is included in what I said. >> Nothing was made up. Apparently, you lack a fundamental understanding of >> the difference between a question and a statement. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new whines > for the group. TM asked you a question that an answer from you would either prove you to be a liar or a fool, depending on which way your answer tilted. Little wonder you never explain yourself. Phil #3 >>> Is this a chick thing where you can't have a conversation without making >>> things up and reading your own ideas into the things other people say? I >>> said exactly what you read, thats it, none of your nonsense is included >>> in what I said. >> I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You >> can both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Little wonder you never explain yourself. > Phil #3 No, she asked a bullshit question designed to change the topic of the conversation, like she always does when she can't refute what I have said. Since nothing in her response adressed anything in my post it was pretty obvious (even to a lying shitbag like yourself) what she was up to. On Sep 14, 5:43 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >> I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You > >> can both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > said. Since nothing in her response adressed anything in my post it was > pretty obvious (even to a lying shitbag like yourself) what she was up to. <snicker> Refute your "facts"? You mean the ones you haven't posted any cites for, but expect everyone to buy into just because you claim they are true? LOL > On Sep 14, 5:43 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > any cites for, but expect everyone to buy into just because you claim > they are true? LOL If they aren't true you should have no trouble refuting them without resorting to lies and subject changes right? Have a go. >> On Sep 14, 5:43 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > If they aren't true you should have no trouble refuting them without > resorting to lies and subject changes right? Have a go. In other words, you can't cite them and when you are shown to be a liar and a bigot you claim you were misunderstood. Liar Phil #3 >>> On Sep 14, 5:43 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Phil #3 Pick one, so far you haven't been able to refute anything I've said you just hide behind her skirt spew lies to support her lies. On Sep 15, 12:57 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>> On Sep 14, 5:43 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Pick one, so far you haven't been able to refute anything I've said you > just hide behind her skirt spew lies to support her lies.- <snicker> Provide some cites so I can check out your "facts". Or do you prefer to just fling your opinions around? > On Sep 15, 12:57 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > <snicker> Provide some cites so I can check out your "facts". Or do > you prefer to just fling your opinions around? Was I talking to you? try to keep your nagging to your own threads. On Sep 15, 6:31 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > > On Sep 15, 12:57 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Was I talking to you? try to keep your nagging to your own threads I wasn't aware that you were in charge of who could respond in which thread, XXX. >> On Sep 15, 12:57 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Was I talking to you? try to keep your nagging to your own threads. Translation: I cannot support my "facts". >>>> On Sep 14, 5:43 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Pick one, so far you haven't been able to refute anything I've said you > just hide behind her skirt spew lies to support her lies. Try to follow. I'll type s l o w l y so you can perhaps comprehend. TM asked you a question. She didn't refute. A question means she is asking, not stating. Perhaps you don't know the difference? Phil #3 On Sep 15, 4:42 am, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > > On Sep 14, 5:43 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I KNEW you could not supply cites. You have always refused to do so. You make claims and offer NO PROOF. <chuckle> Tap-tap-tappity- tap...... > On Sep 15, 4:42 am, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You make claims and offer NO PROOF. <chuckle> Tap-tap-tappity- > tap...... I have yet to see a cite from you, nothing but more distractions and straman arguments. If that makes you feel better, keep yourself busy. I'm guessing that you don't have any opinions about the topic, just a need to distract yourself from the point and keep the agenda safe. On Sep 15, 5:48 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > > On Sep 15, 4:42 am, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I have yet to see a cite from you, I'M not the one claiming that I am supplying FACTS. I've asked for cites on you purported FACTS. But you have yet to supply any. Are you saying I should post cites for the QUESTIONS I ask you? (weird) nothing but more distractions and > straman arguments. If that makes you feel better, keep yourself busy. > > I'm guessing that you don't have any opinions about the topic, just a > need to distract yourself from the point and keep the agenda safe I actually have some very strong opinions on the subject. Which is why I ask you for the cites to your purported facts. >> On Sep 15, 4:42 am, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I have yet to see a cite from you, nothing but more distractions and > straman arguments. Tu quoque. > If that makes you feel better, keep yourself busy. > > I'm guessing that you don't have any opinions about the topic, just a need > to distract yourself from the point and keep the agenda safe. >>> I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You can >>> both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new whines [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Since nothing in her response adressed anything in my post it was pretty > obvious (even to a lying shitbag like yourself) what she was up to. Still playing it safe by not answering, I see. You are such a bigot. Phil #3 >>>> I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You >>>> can both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Phil #3 No opinions of your own? Very typical of a loser like you to hide behind someone else's bullshit rather than make up your own. >>>>> I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You >>>>> can both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > No opinions of your own? Very typical of a loser like you to hide behind > someone else's bullshit rather than make up your own. No, I have definite opinions and many facts to support many of my opinions. I can't prove you to be a sexist pig, but that's my opinon. Phil #3 >> Nothing was made up. Apparently, you lack a fundamental understanding of >> the difference between a question and a statement. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new whines > for the group. Non sequitur. >>> Is this a chick thing where you can't have a conversation without making >>> things up and reading your own ideas into the things other people say? I >>> said exactly what you read, thats it, none of your nonsense is included >>> in what I said. >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those things, > redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that. You're a liar or stupid. Only you know which. but whichever, you are definitely a sexual bigot. Phil #3 >>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > definitely a sexual bigot. > Phil #3 and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though. >>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though. True that whatever I say doesn't change the fact that you are a lying sexual bigot. Phil #3 >> and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though. > > True that whatever I say doesn't change the fact that you are a lying > sexual bigot. > Phil #3 Or the fact that you are a lying shitbag whose advice should be avoided at all costs. Of course the facts in my first 2 posts (before you all changed the subject to make this thread about me) are still unchallenged except for a few weak attempts to put words in my mouth. On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >> and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > changed the subject to make this thread about me) are still unchallenged > except for a few weak attempts to put words in my mouth. Which "facts" weere those? Maybe you could post some cites. I don't recall seeing those........ > On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Which "facts" weere those? Maybe you could post some cites. I don't > recall seeing those........ Read the first 2 posts and get back to me. Feel free to show where I am incorrect. >> On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Read the first 2 posts and get back to me. Feel free to show where I am > incorrect. Everything you have posted on this NG has been incorrect, just pick any one. Phil #3 >>> On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > one. > Phil #3 Yet you can't refute any of it. >>>> On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Yet you can't refute any of it. Well let's start with my ex, my kids and me. You don't know sh.t about any of us yet play like an expert with intimate knowledge of our situations. After we resolve that,we'll move on to something else you know nothing about, it's a wide and long path. Phil #3 On Sep 15, 4:42 am, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > > On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Read the first 2 posts and get back to me. Feel free to show where I am > incorrect Still waiting for those cites...... > On Sep 15, 4:42 am, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Still waiting for those cites...... Sorry if you can't read. On Sep 15, 5:48 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > > On Sep 15, 4:42 am, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Sorry if you can't read Oh, but I CAN read--which is why I know you have not yet posted any cites. >> On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Read the first 2 posts and get back to me. Feel free to show where I am > incorrect. ".....if you leave your son without a role model he will find his own male role model and you will have no say in the matter." The above is from your second post. Prove your "fact". >>> and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the subject to make this thread about me) are still unchallenged except > for a few weak attempts to put words in my mouth. No, brainless, I can back up my statements. It is YOU that is wanting for facts. You are a bigot and a liar. Does you mommy know you play on her computer? Phil #3 >>>> and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You are a bigot and a liar. Does you mommy know you play on her computer? > Phil #3 I don't need any facts from a loser like you, thanks. How does it feel to be such a loser you have to argue with people you suspect are children? No self esteem at all? Thats a shame, I couldn't imagine going through life feeling the need to defend my life to a child. Even worse, you are defending your loser lifestyle with nothing more than whines and childish excuses. Excellent work, do you still wonder why your kids don't take your advice? Sort of a do as I say not as I do style of parenting. You refuse to accept responsibility for any of your failure, instead you make excuses and hurl insults, then you wonder why your kids are drop outs who take no responsibility. On Sep 15, 1:02 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>>> and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I don't need any facts from a loser like you, thanks. Wait a minute!! FACTS don't matter if they come from someone you consider to be a loser? FACTS are FACTS, no matter who they come from!! How does it feel > to be such a loser you have to argue with people you suspect are > children? No self esteem at all? Thats a shame, I couldn't imagine going [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Wait a minute!! FACTS don't matter if they come from someone you > consider to be a loser? FACTS are FACTS, no matter who they come > from!! His facts are only facts to him, they don't translate well outside of this whiner group. >> Wait a minute!! FACTS don't matter if they come from someone you >> consider to be a loser? FACTS are FACTS, no matter who they come >> from!! > > His facts are only facts to him, they don't translate well outside of this > whiner group. Refute them then with other "facts". Oh that's right, your opinions aren't based on any known facts. By the way, a fact is a fact regardless who provides it. I think you've confused "opinion" with "fact". Phil #3 >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get > 18+ years of "child support" from him. Precisely! Just the fact that the man would need to register in order to excercise this so-called "right" in the first place is a clear indication that the mother already opposes any such rights that he may have. Which begs the question: why register? >>>> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father >>>> of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps > the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep. And then you woke up. 1. The only "parental" right is mother's right. 2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support" is a ridiculous concept. 3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken. >>>>> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father >>>>> of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > a ridiculous concept. > 3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken. I think some of the commenters above have made the mistake of confusing adoption laws and paternity laws. Adoption laws have nothing to do with establishing CS orders. In fact, when an adoption occurs no CS is paid by either parent. A putative father registering with a state's database never obligates him for CS. It is the legal process used to establish paternity that drives the CS obligation. And in the case of voluntary paternity acknowledgement the declaration can be challenged for up to 12 months depending on state statute limitations. BTW - I was a CP father. Several of the other posters here were CP fathers too. The problem fathers have regarding CP status is the initial court orders are biased against them. It is not uncommon for a father to be the CP parent for older children, particularly boys. >>>>>> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal >>>>>> father of a child. When parents are married, paternity is [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > A putative father registering with a state's database never obligates him > for CS. Likewise, handing a lighter to a child doesn't start a forest fire; but it sure does help. > It is the legal process used to establish paternity that drives the CS > obligation. And in the case of voluntary paternity acknowledgement the > declaration can be challenged for up to 12 months depending on state > statute limitations. This father being ahead of potential adoptive parents is mythical at best. Any judge, at any time, can rule ANY way they please, thus rendering such place in line only an illusion! > BTW - I was a CP father. Several of the other posters here were CP > fathers too. The problem fathers have regarding CP status is the initial > court orders are biased against them. It is not uncommon for a father to > be the CP parent for older children, particularly boys. That all depends on just what your definition of "common" is. > "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of > a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established > in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not > automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as > possible for the benefit of the child." <snip> Something I noticed is that when someone makes a Will they state something like "I ___ Being of sound mind...". I would think the purpose of being of sound mind is that you knew what you were doing when you made the will. On the opposite side, when a man signs a paper establishing paternity, they don't make sure he is informed that if DNA tests prove the child isn't his that he will still have to pay support for the child that isn't his. So, by that definition, most of the time the man didn't sign the paper "being of sound mind" or at least he maybe didn't realize a signature was more important than scientific facts. It seems like, in my non-legal opinion, someone not knowing what they were doing by signing, by not realizing how crooked the law is, should be grounds to nullify their signature, for the purpose, they weren't of "sound mind". RogerN On Sep 13, 7:37 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > teachrmama wrote: > > On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said. <chuckle> There you go again. Same old tap dance. <tap, tap, tappity, tap> You state that "Boys emulate their fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time." If they have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father? If they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose responsibility is that? > > So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his > > children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids > were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense. Well, if the mother spent her time on public assistance and the boys now spend their time on public assistance, you can see how that assumption could be made. But if, indeed, the boys are copying another male role model because they did not have access to their father to model themselves after due to mom's machinations, whose responsibility is that? Mom must then have provided males on public assistance for her boys to model themselves after. So, like it or not, she is still responsible for their indoctrination into the lifestyle they have chosen. > > And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the > > responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read, > thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.- Hide quoted text - <chuckle> You don't like having your statements followed to their logical conclusions? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.