|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:52 PM February 20th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
We helped expose that man-hater in this letter to the editor that goes to her district
www.dailybreeze.com/content/opinion/853026.html
And we will not stop exposing all of the bigots who continue to propagate their misandry.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:04 PM February 20th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Good work, Marc. This is totally outrageous. It's even more outrageous the way hate-mongers like Kruel deny men simple justice.
Time for a revolution. I'll do all that I can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice work Marc. I am glad they not only published a whole detailed article on it, but they also published the reply. Sheila Kruel will get hers someday ... and I would pay real money to have it video-taped to put it in memorium.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:14 PM February 21st, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, geeze, not this goof-ball, again.
This woman drives me nuts!
One of these days ol'Sheila is going to go too far. And when she does I hope she STAYS there!
And yeah, let us all know where we can get that copy of Krule "getting hers", I too would pay money to see that!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:30 PM February 20th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This type of crap should be everyone's top priority.
BTW, are you in Austin? If so, email me at dudex@austin.rr.com.
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, this kind of thing happens, and will continue to happen, because there is an unofficial war on men going on. It's getting worse and worse. We know about Emilyslist, we know about matching funds ... however, this kind of thing occurs because men are more than willing to sacrifice other men on the alter of 'career enhancement'. While the feminist lobby surely has their complicity, ultimately men have done this to their brothers.
Somehow men have become pariahs and scapegoats for all of societal problems. Men have lost their place in society and become dehumanized. Women are taught to hate men, mens pain is the subject of ridicule and Leno's monologues.
The promulgation of lies and myths have brainwashed men and women alike into believing that men are inherently inferior and deserve whatever misery they get.
Unless men, and the women who love us, band together society will become crippled to the point of no return. I believe it's too late already.
I know I've said nothing new here, but what has happened seems so surrealistically horrendous it defies comprehension. Our lives are substantially ruined, even if you have never been victimized by all this it still hangs over all our heads like the sword of Damocles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's another article on the same theme:
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/bsmith/2004/02 /18#a192
Child support system is unfair to good dads
by Mary Eckholm, columnist
reprinted with permission of the author and the Kanabec County Times Online
Did you know that around the turn of the century in this country, when people with children got divorced, the father was automatically given sole custody of the children?
The reason was that fathers at that time were considered the legal providers for the family; the financial resources belonged to the father and as such, it was his job to keep his children with him and provide for them. Women were still “second class citizens” then.
More recently, of course, it has become the norm to consider the mother to be the most important emotional provider for the children, so the laws of divorce have changed to give the mother sole custody, while the father must still be the primary provider of financial support by paying “child support” to the custodial parent, i.e. the mother.
There has been a lot of attention given over the past 10 to 20 years about “dead beat dads.” Unfortunately, you don’t have to be a “dead beat dad” to be treated like one by the current Minnesota child support system.
Did you know that the system that is set up to collect child support from non-custodial parents does not have a procedure in place for refunding any overpayments of child support? Is that because it is assumed that a non-custodial parent would never pay more than they owe?
There is a Minnesota statute that requires at least a 20 percent AND $50 per month difference in child support in order to reduce the amount owed. In other words, the system can increase the amount of child support for any amount, but it cannot decrease the amount unless the amount of that decrease would be at least $50 AND a 20 percent difference.
(e.g. If you are required to pay $1,000 per month, but you are paying $1,100 per month, there can be no decrease to $1,000 because the decrease is not a 20 percent difference – although, for most people, wouldn’t you want the extra $100 per month in your own pocket? After the required $1,000, shouldn’t it become a personal choice of whether and how to spend the extra $100 per month – or any amount – on your child?)
The system assumes that the non-custodial parent, i.e. the father, is at fault for the divorce and would not willingly support his children without enforcement.
The system is biased in favor of the custodial parent, usually the mother. Even if it is the choice of the mother to leave the marriage (for any reason), it is the father who will pay — in depreciated time spent with his children and by his role being reduced to merely a paycheck.
The system completely ignores the fact that “hell hath no fury as a woman scorned” and presents itself as the perfect vehicle for a woman to seek her revenge upon her ex-husband. The court costs alone as well as the time expended on dealing with a bureaucratic entity are perks that allow the ex-wife to harass her ex-husband. If the situation was reversed and biased in the male’s favor, it would not be allowed to continue.
The current system propagates two stereotypes: the idea that women need to be dependent on men for their income and lifestyle; and that women are emotional, nurturing caregivers and men are not. Equality between the sexes means that both males and females are treated equally by the law and are equally responsible to themselves and their children.
If such a law existed that ordered married people to spend a specific amount of money per month on their children, even if that amount was beyond their means – and they were required to be accountable for that specific dollar amount each month – the law could not stand.
Bottom line: the system is not fair to fathers who are NOT “dead beat dads.” It is simply not necessary for the child support system to be involved in the lives of parents who do financially support their children.
Why is taxpayer money used to finance a system that enforces child support payments of non-custodial parents who are already in compliance in financially supporting their children?
In recent years, there has been a wave of information and fathers’ rights activist groups influencing this situation and working to change an unfair, misunderstood family court system.
The reality is that parenting is both a male and female responsibility and ultimately, the financial support of children is not the most important aspect of that responsibility. If it were, then only people who are rich enough would be allowed to procreate.
# -- Posted 2/18/04; 12:03:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:55 AM February 21st, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
“Did you know that around the turn of the century in this country, when people with children got divorced, the father was automatically given sole custody of the children? The reason was that fathers at that time were considered the legal providers for the family; the financial resources belonged to the father and as such, it was his job to keep his children with him and provide for them.”
1850’s to 1890’s era photo
“Bottom line: the system is not fair to fathers who are NOT “dead beat dads.” It is simply not necessary for the child support system to be involved in the lives of parents who do financially support their children.”
================================================== ===================
Kal:
You are absolutely right. The historical error of men appears to have been, not that we were willing to give equality under law to women, but that when the femi-supremists came along men did not oppose their tyranny with the same zeal we used to fight for women’s rights. Women’s rights has become the mantra of the femi-supremists to ask for anything they want, while they actually strive to oppress everything male, and build totalitarian power and control for radical feminism indoctrinated females. All of the original feminist verbage that helped women to achieve a large degree of equality is now perverted and simply used as a weapon to oppress males, and steal for women. Clearly, Christinna Hoff Sommers was right on the money when she wrote the book, “Who Stole Feminism?” With the assistance of hundreds of women’s studies programs on college campuses and women’s commissions in government, it appears that the "femi-reich" is entrenched so firmly in its evil empire that the body count of men destroyed by it will continue to grow for decades to come.
Societal Policies
Please keep speaking the truth, for when we all fall silent, we will have come to the end of all hope.
Sincerely, Ray
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:18 PM February 21st, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
She kind of looks like Regis Philbin..!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:10 PM February 21st, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care what she looks like. She's deliberately treating men like second-class citizens, and destroying male's relationships with children. That makes her disgusting and evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:32 PM February 21st, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Even if she were pretty, that wouldn't mitigate her crimes. Three-time paternity fraud perpetrator Wanda Scroggins Wise is physically attractive, but she is so morally repulsive I want to vomit whenever I see a picture of her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:53 PM February 21st, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Having seen recent photos of her in the last year, I can tell you that time has not been as kind to her as that posted picture indicates. The same could be said of pictures taken of me 5 years ago.
Still, she is one of the most incompetent, irresponsible and tyrannical Senators every elected to public office in California.
Sheila Kuhel personifies these statements: (click), California's State Capitol, Sacramento
I think there is no better or more shining example of misandry in government in this world, than our own offical man-hater's state house in California. Sheila Kuhel has worked very, very hard to make it thus.
Sincerely, Ray
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a really good article for statistics, figures, and overall explanation of paternity fraud. Even though I thought it a little slanted towards women's groups, kind of a "now we understand that women need this money" but overall, I liked very much.
a note, uhm, how does getting money out of innocent citizens convince women to be more sexually responsible? The 'harrowing' half-interview to find a father?? If anything, this would convince women that even if they get pregnant from random guys, someone will help pay for the kid! less worries, right? :P
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
