₦airaland Forum

carefreewannabe: You have just addressed a BIG PROBLEM.
The vast majority of men is NOT even interested in looking after their kids after a divorce.
The vast majority in MOST societies considers it the job of the woman, the mother!

Nope.

Many ask for custody and don't get it.

Men being less interested in looking after kids does not mean they are not amenable to it if necessary.

carefreewannabe: Women who agree with the father taking care of the kids after a divorce have to REPEATEDLY explain themselves why they "abandoned" their kids. People consider them "uncaring" and "unnatural".

This is just chitty-chat.

It has no relevance to law-formulation.

carefreewannabe: And based on these convictions, which might or might not be your hidden convictions too, are the laws we have, which I consider UNJUST to both, MEN and WOMEN.

If you want to be TRULY objective, then you will admit that such laws are not only discriminating against men but also against women. Societal conventions are imposed on individuals and most individuals don't even question them.

I am sure that when I asked you if you would take care of the kids in the case of a divorce and for their sake give up on your career and possibly your free time and private life with a new partner, you were thinking "Hell, no!".

This is an example of the "women are the real victims" I stated I know you for.

Get back to the point. The law is sexist.

I would not get involved in such insignificant twist you are putting on it bar telling you the laws were made INTENTIONALLY to favour women, not to discriminate against them.

If women feel it is unjust, I can guarantee you it would not exist tomorrow.

carefreewannabe: And I think that majority of fathers are free to do so.
I am sure that most women are happy to have fathers who help them.
I am sure that MANY mothers wish their ex-husbands would help more.

However, if fathers choose NOT to take MINIMUM care of their kids, nobody can force them.
What can a mother do when a father refuses to take care of his kids? NOTHING.
She is left alone.

There are probably more women who are left back alone with their kids than fathers who have no access to their kids. There are laws that can punish a mother for not letting the father see his kids but there is no law that punishes fathers who don't want to see their kids and help raise them.

So please don't tell me that I want to say that "women are the real victims" when it's me who os able to see the injustice done to fathers when it's you who seems to be unable to put yourself in the position of a mother who is left back alone and not protected by any law.

I think you missed the point here.

So as long as majority of men have wives that "allow" them to have access, then everything is okay?

carefreewannabe: He has to make an argument when he is in a disagreement with the mother. The mother must accuse him of something first. If he was the one to accuse the mother of child neglect or abuse or whatever, she would also have to prove that her children are properly taken care of.

Nope.

Many men from the very beginning are made to feel like unworthies in court except they can prove otherwise.

It is far more reputationally acceptable to courts and governments to see men suffer due to their mis-action than to see women or children suffer due to their mis-action. If he accused the mother of something, I can guarantee you that the response would not be as intense as the mother accusing him of something. It might even be something as lame as "he was emotionally abusive in the relationship to us, so he should not be let close to the kids".

Now lets say he said "she was emotionally abusive in the relationship to us, so she should not be let close to the kids", you think it would be taken seriously? .............Don't make me laugh.

It is well documented that men that go through UK, US, Canadian courts feel violated for being their sex by the court system. Only if the wife "decides" to make it easy, do they normally have it easy. The laws put power in the hands of women to use and misuse as they wish. Just like this moronic law of California is about to do.

carefreewannabe: I have a good friend whose ex-wife had to pay fines for not sticking to the rules set by a court.
I don't know why this isn't possible in the UK.

Because the UK is a sexist nation.

They are only bothered about sharing his years of hardwork with her even when she has no contribution to it.

carefreewannabe: No doubt.

A society that decides that is a mother's primary job and duty to take care of the kids, is too.
And MAJORITY of men will be in support of such convictions.
A mother is better qualified to take care of the kids so let me come every second weekend and be a hero daddy.

Another fine example of you trying to turn it into "the women are the real victims".

I know you too well and your argument pattern.

carefreewannabe: Which is harmful to MOTHERS, FATHERS and CHILDREN.

Yet, I don't see many fathers who complain. And I see very few fathers who CHOOSE to live with their kids after a divorce. And these fathers get a lot of appreciation and admiration when they do something that is NATURALLY expected of women.

And here is where the laws come from. And if you are honest, these laws are based on the convictions you hold, too.

And again "the women are the real victims".

I repeat, the law is based on an intent to favour women irrespective of your attempt to twist the basis.

Women are given powers and no responsibilities to pummel and take revenge on their exes.

If you claim you do not see fathers complaining about being fleeced to pay for a "lifestyle she is used to" and denied access to their kids like if "it is not a lifestyle he is used to", then you need to get out more and observe the news more.

Many fathers don't have the luxury of the choice to live with their kids after divorce. The laws makes sure of that.

The law states: The house goes to the wife and kids ............and that is the best interest of the kids.

I bet to you, that is just making women the real victims.

carefreewannabe: I have told you that if the case was reverse, men would get the money. Then you asked me if I think it is right or just. No, it's not! At least not for me BUT it is not about sexism.

It is SEXIST!

carefreewannabe: Yet, they don't give women any choice when the father refuses to take PROPER care of their children or to take care of them at all. I guess, from your standpoint, you have not even thought of it ONCE.

I don't want to even imagine myself alone with two kids and a father who doesn't care at all.
And this is what happens in Germany frequently, especially with irresponsible men who come to Germany, promise a woman heaven on Earth, have a baby with her and then leave because they secured a permanent stay. Then they do illegal import export business and the German welfare system pays child support. They show up every now and then if at all, go back home and marry a new wife, come back to Europe and enjoy the best of the two worlds.

Is there any law that protects such women? Is there any law that punishes these men who abandon these kids and their mothers?

The answer is .... NO!

Welcome to "the West"! A jolly place, isn't it?

Again, a fine example of "women are the real victims".

And you say I don't know you well?

Now let me correct your fallacy. The law gives priority rights to women having the kids, does not mean the law bans them from relinquishing the rights. Women take up those rights willfully.

The men do not have the luxury of the rights and when they ask for it, don't get it.

I have never heard of a victim with special rights that they can also relinquish if they wish but are happy to take up.

carefreewannabe: I will read this article and I know you will come up with 100 more articles. My only hope is you that you cultivate the ability to see things from different perspectives before calling women selfish.

Women are naturally selfish and illogical. I will never change my views on that.

I know what nature dictates. I don't argue with it to be politically correct.

BraniacX: no cretinous?
No person?
.
No p, its only a cedi, i have more to spare.
.
.
* throws another cedi into the pot *
and don't fail me this time sagapork! Dat's my money u know. . .
.
.
.
.
Our? I completely reject,deny,renounce any affiliation with u stupid Oinkmaestro!

You are a cretinous person!

You are so dumb, you actually think I am Ghanaian?

Can you see you are exactly a product of a failed education system as I stated?

Reetarded fcktards!

BraniacX: better a gutter than ur fettering cesspit of a nation called ghana.
And haven't i warned you to stop oinking around ma farm? U're growing balls oh! Ehn piggy boy? Hope u don't want to go animal farm on me george owellian style chanting "2 legs bad,4 legs good" ?
Before u come and overthrow ma regime on this farm, i will harvest you and other like minded piggies, at least let me make some profit from you and the rest for the resources i have put into fattening u up so much so that you even look like an slowpoke.
.
.
Suddenly i have an hunger for porkpie and porkstew.
Anybody else interested in chowing some pork? Am gonna have a porkfest soon and you're all invited, sagamite the pork will be on the menu. Let's all hope he tastes better than he looks because if you see him now, u might loose appetite.
.
.
For the record and quote me, am better educated than you, your forefathers, your future generations and your whole miserable village back in ghana combined, and am a product of Nigerian education so whose educational system is failed now ehn? Who are the academics that ghana can boast of internationall? Idiota!
.
.
.
.
Anybets? Am betting he'll use cretinous, illiterate and/person in his next rant. Am throwing one cedi into the pot.
.
.
.
Yep! Dat's me sending you scurrying back to pick up your dictionary.
.
.
U daft oaf!

Kai!

Look at the product of our failed education system o!

When he posted this, he taught "AHHHH! I am going to make sense. No be me?".

tuoyoojo: ...Walks in,throws a bone at sagamite the bingo...sagamite wags tail and brings out his tongue with spittle drooling...kicks the bingo in the face...."Come on!Run along doggie!"

This is the contribution of a product of a failed education system who's fcktardism has been exposed.

Can you see now how Nigeria destroys your life despite your numerous useless prayers?

Moronic nation, moronic people!

You don't feel sad for Nigeria when you are pardoning corrupt convicts?

Moronic c*nt!

50calibre: Really? After battering you, I will call an ambulance for you, they'd think you were set upon by a mob.

After dealing with you, I will probably be charged with aggravated battery

person, continue running from me.

tuoyoojo: Hey doggie! Hit me with sometin new. Am bored to death with this ur old punchlines. Get a dictionary, check up some new words.

Don't tell me this is d best ur incestuous dead n decaying brain cells can come up with.

Pls don't make me believe u went thru adult educational school...give me sometin new to read. Plssssss.

give me the false hope u r worth my time...bingo sagamite....oya! U know the drill na. Keep barking!

Here is something new:

You are a cretinous person!

carefreewannabe: What do you mean when you say "custody"?

Here in Germany mothers AND fathers have AUTOMATICALLY shared custody in the case of a divorce, meaning that they both have the right to decide on major and minor issues concerning the child.

When we speak of custody in terms of who the children live with, that's a different thing and then WE MUST ASK OURSELVES HOW MANY MEN ARE WILLING TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN WITH THEM.

I am pretty sure that you would NOT be willing to have your two children living with you in the case of a divorce and I am pretty sure that more than 90% of men are very COMFORTABLE with the mothers having two kids at home and at the same time having to work because most men are not even able to pay enough money so that the mother can stay at home and take care of the kids.

MOST single mothers struggle to juggle child upbringing and their jobs.
This is the reality and society considers it perfectly ok that women suffer from the double load.

I really don't see how the law favors me when the father's duty is to pay child support and two show up every second weekend.

Would you be willing to stay at home in the case of a divorce? Just curious. Why / Why not?

I know you and I knew you were going to try and turn it into some kind of argument of "women are the real victims" and deviate from the point.

There are men that would be comfortable looking after their kids. They are not a majority.

For those that don't want to have primary custody after their kids, they would want to have contact with their kids and help raise them. These are a majority.

Courts DO give men access to the kids in the UK, albeit after letting him make an argument that he is worthy enough as the mentality is that men are unworthy monsters only there for financial contributions (the mother is assumed automatically to be worthy and unquestionably loves the children). He would only have this access after proving he is worthy if he is not unlucky for her to make some unsubstantiated claim of physically, emotionally sexually harming the kids (which happens in some few cases and can delay contact by a few years).

Now, that contact access by the courts is just a statement by the courts, if the woman decides she is not going to abide by it in the UK, guess what?

The courts can't and don't do shyt except empty threats.

They would not fine or jail her. And they have no other punishment to give her even though they just helped her rob the man of all his life's hard work.

Why?

Because it is in the best interest of the child.

She is the primary care-giver, so we cannot separate the child from the mother by sending her to jail. (But, oops, it is okay yo separate the child from the father).

And we cannot fine her because that is like taking money from the poor child's mouth as she controls the finances.

So basically the law is unenforceable and women can, if they chose, tell the court judgment to "fck off" without saying it.

A society that makes it convenient for women to arbitrarily decide and control access of the father to his kids is sexist.

I repeat:

"Judges make sure that assets are split equally, but they don't do that on custody and child-related issues".

These same courts would award exorbitant sums as "child support/maintenance" but without any mechanism to ensure it is being spent on the children, yet would strive to set up mechanisms to ensure that the money is paid. So the women have the arbitrary powers to spend the money as they wish. It is assumed (by law) that the woman would always spend the exorbitant money on the kids. But if a court awards £10,000 a month for child maintenance, no one is too sure £2000K of that does not go on Manolo Blahniks. (My apologies to all you women if I am mistaken and who are probably screaming at their screens in disgust that £2000K cannot even by a buckle from a Manolo Blahnik shoes)

In the UK, USA, Australia, Canada and Ireland that I am sure off (as they speak English and I follow the news) this is the case. It happens frequently and men are at the mercy of women because the law is built to give women weapons to attack men. The essential argument of this thread right from time.

Nuggets I have highlighted in this article summarises the mentality in the UK and exposes the politicians JUST as I stated.

[size=18pt]Fathers finally get equal access rights to children. So why now?[/size]

The glaring injustice suffered by many children and (principally) their fathers when paternal relationships are destroyed without a murmur from the state has been obvious for decades to anyone who cared. Yet this seems an unlikely moment for the government to attempt to enshrine in law the rights of both fathers and mothers to see their children after separation. True, the fathers' rights movement has been vociferous at times, but latterly it has been relatively quiet and seemed politically marginalised. No apparent groundswell of pressure for change has come from the voluntary sector, rather the opposite – plenty of negative reaction from some children's charities and from Labour to the government's proposals. So why is this change happening now?

Perhaps, most simply, because it appears to be common sense to both Tory and Liberal Democrat ministers. Male Conservative MPs are typically highly privileged with a background in business and the professions. They are used to exerting control over their own lives and over others. They do not expect to find themselves on the wrong side of the law. So when they and their colleagues go through divorce, it is a shocking and unfamiliar experience for them to feel semi-criminalised as fathers and to be blocked from being with their children. Changing the law likewise seems to make sense to the straightforward values of gender equity held by Lib Dems. Like the Tories, they are led by a privileged public schoolboy, who can't understand why he can run the country but, if things got difficult with his wife, he might not be able to see his own children.

Behind the scenes, the fathers' rights movement, ranging from the highly visible Fathers4Justice to the more measured Families Need Fathers, which has campaigned for 30 years as a self-help group for separated fathers and built the arguments that have demonstrated the depth of the crisis, worked conscientiously on the Tories before the general election. It received a sympathetic hearing in numerous meetings with people such as the then shadow children's minister, Tim Loughton, who fashioned the party's children's and family policy in opposition.

In contrast, Labour has never got to grips with the tragedies of separated fatherhood. The party has been keen to support fathers' rights in the workplace, with enhanced paternity leave to level the gender playing field at work and enable dads to support mums getting back to work. But Labour's key concern in all of this was women and, as a result, it was not interested in championing fathers' rights in the home. So Labour was never going to take this step, certainly not while it was led by fathers with antiquated parenting styles such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. In contrast to them, Cameron and Clegg, despite the workaholism of the political breed, look modern and engaged with parenting.

There will over the coming months be lots of kicking and screaming about the proposed change in the law. But the significance of this equalisation does not really lie in what happens in the courts. That probably will not change a lot. But changing the law will send out a message to fathers that the state is not their enemy. It will no longer ignore the dismantling of relationships with their children. This will give confidence to the thousands of fathers who never go to court but just accept what they are given in terms of paltry time with their children because they fear no one will support them in seeking a better settlement.

This is indeed a monumental moment. For decades, the state has rightly been tackling inequality in the workplace and patriarchal abuses in the family by confronting, for example, domestic violence and ensuring that mothers have sufficient income after divorce. But this is the first time the state has come forward to challenge matriarchy in the family and its abuses with respect to access to children. We are moving to a better domestic world where paternity, not patriarchy, is supported and, where maternity, not matriarchy, is equally supported.

I expect many worrying and apocalyptic warnings about the risks to children of this legislation. Amid the noise and resistance, we should remember gender equality is now one of the key values of the public working world. We should not tolerate anything less in the domestic, family arena.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/fathers-rights-overlooked-law-welcome

50calibre: Lol If I ever grab you, I will beat that madness off you, I've tried schooling, apparently it doesn't work, so I will try face to face, hands-on treatment.

Cretinous person, your soul would end up in heaven.

all4naija: You are disease! You have a big problem, primitive man!

HIV/AIDS is talking about disease and big problems?

all4naija: How are you doing, troublemaker and infamous misogynist on Nairaland?!

Shut up, fagg!

50calibre: Yes!! What did they teach you? To keep yourself and be a woman's fool?
You're indeed a retar*d!!!!

Yep. That is the cretinous person I am talking about.

Sixix: That wouldn't be too bad, would it?

Typical woman. Illogical and selfish.

Sixix: The government is trying to minimise public spending therefore it is an avenue to tag such rationale to be in the interest of the public - public policy. I wouldn't want to believe that they are aware of the injustices, And yeah I know that they know .

Frustration-Depression-Suicide-Extinction

Not a rational excuse for men to pay for responsibilities governments want to abrogate.

Sixix: Well, the feminist movement started well, issues relating to empowerment etc (it dealt with real issues) but it is becoming problematic.

They have fcked it up and we will have more failed families.

Thank the liberal progressive-funks.

carefreewannabe: So who do you want to help men if men can't help themselves?

The feminist movement started out with a small group of courageous women. It took them a lot of time, effort and energy to make everybody understand that they also have the right to vote, to go to school and to have their own money.

It is not so long that women in Germany had to ask the husband's permission to go to work.

If it was possible for women to SUCCESSFULLY fight convictions that have been upheld FOR CENTURIES, I don't see why it should be impossible for men to do the same.

You know very well that feminists did not only have to fight against male oppression but against female oppression as well.

In the world we live in, we don't need people to help themselves before advanced countries know to be logical.

We just need a brain and a sense of logic and egalitarianism!

carefreewannabe: Some laws are in the best interest of the child.

The laws guiding the philosophy of the Western countries is not based on the premise of "In the best interest of the child". That is all a ruse.

If it was, NONE would be creating kids for the benefits of their new favourites: homosexuals.

It is in the best interest of a child to be in a natural and normal family.

Creating kids by IVF to put them in unnatural and unconventional families is not in their best interest. No argument can justify that.

That is another example that shows that "best interest of the child" is not the premise of Western laws. It is just banded about because it is funky, thanks to our liberal fascists, progressive-funks.

carefreewannabe: Are you not the one calling other men wussies?

Before we blame it ALL on the female folk and for the sake of objectivity, just remember that fathers are the first to teach their boys that crying makes them less of a boy.

You just picked that from the air and threw it in the mix?

carefreewannabe: When women were fighting for equal rights, society used to label them too, as aggressive and manly. It didn't stop them from fighting against what they considered injustice.

And so?

What is your point?

carefreewannabe: Like I said, the law, as little sense it makes, is also for men.
If his wife was the rich one who made all this money and who cheated on him, he would get paid.

So you are saying the law is fair?

So if one makes a law that states only people that are 5ft 9 plus, and who can lift 100kg in weight, can vote, it is fair because "Well it applies to both men and women"?

carefreewannabe: If two people are married in the UK, who has the custody?

In 90% of the cases, the woman gets custody.

And the law is based on the premise that the mother should have the child. The argument in court starts from that premise and the father has to argue why he should get it (and the argument starts from the perception that he is a unworthy monster that has enjoyed too much privilege from the marriage that he most likely abandoned while doing his own thing). The mother sits down and watch comfortably knowing the court is on her side except she is a complete misfit.

At the same time, majority of the mothers are entitled to legal aid (government pays) or get the man paying their legal bills by court order if he is affluent enough, while the courts expect the man to pay his legal bills himself even when not affluent.

Lets see how far he would want to take it considering all those handicaps versus the poor "victim" (i.e. the woman), who needs all the protection.

He would be broke and the lawyers rich! .....And still not get custody.

The whole family court system is like handcuffing, blindfolding and shackling one leg of the men all at the same time and then throwing them in the ring telling them to get in a fight with the women with the first to get a head punch to be declared as the winner and then say "It is a fair fight and the winner takes all".

50calibre: Retar*d!! No my philosophy is general, it isn't just applicable to wives alone but to guys as well, including you.

Cretinous person, so they taught you at your failed education establishment to beat up your wife?

BraniacX: u're one daft swine of a ghanian u know?
WTF's wrong with u, u ain't d only boar am fattening up for christmass u know so y u going around Oink Oinking! Around ma farm hamboy?
U think u're talking but all i hear is OINK! OINK! and frankly its becoming boring, if i hear one more oink from your disgusting porcine oinktrap that you call a mouth am going to fastrack your promotion into tomorrows ham and small chops.
.
IDIOT!
.
.

Another cretinous person!

Product of a failed educations system!

E no go better for Abacha and IBB for destroying your life.

tuoyoojo: There d rabid dog goes again! Bark again!! Bingo! bingo!!....am so loving this!

You are a cretinous person!

Did you jump gutter and give 10% tithe?

PRAAAY!

carefreewannabe: There are men in government, there are male journalists, there are male intellectuals, there are males in leading positions, there are male judges.
I am sure they will do something against it by the time they feel they need to do something about it.
They have not experienced enough unfavorable treatment to be accepting such laws then.

If the majorities accept it, they are ok with it, obviously, for one reason or another.

I have already described to you how men in journalism and politics are. So park it, it would not work.

After decades of the injustice being known and highlighted, they are still toeing their moronic "progressive-funk" line.

Judges follow the laws politicians set and do their best to hold back personal opinions.

Intellectuals have said theirs and have been aptly heard but ignored.

Very few men are now forming groups (Fathers4Justice, Families Need Fathers etc) but being a male is still seen as wrongdoing in the UK, so their cries are not as emotionally impactful. It is just a few notches above paedophiles crying about their plight.

Maybe things would change when our liberal fascist "progressive-funks" start seeing homosexuals being denied access to "their" kids.

Then you would see the Press and Politicians coming out to scream "OUTRAGE" and wanting to lead the fight to correct the "injustice".

carefreewannabe: Not having the responsibility to name the father is definitely not in the best interest of a child, this is true.

The laws are all about and have always been about "best interest of the woman".

"Best interest of the child" is just a more acceptable subterfuge.

carefreewannabe: True.
Like I said, men in some countries obviously don't feel that way. I don't know why.

Women were able to fight for their rights in the past and it wasn't easy. If men feel that they are at a disadvantage, which I think, they often are, then they must do something about it. I will support them and I am a female.

I have heard some psychologists state that men are more reluctant to be seen protesting for something emotional and are also far less able to coordinate such.

Many men would not even join the campaign until it happens to them. That is due to:

- Their nurturing
- Their machismo
- Desire to be seen as "real men" (a result of psychological control by women's words)
- Trying to impress women and be seen as pro-female (a result of being controlled by their deecks)

Women are more prone, and society accepts them, to protest for emotional rights. Men, far less so.

carefreewannabe: Berlusconi is a very bad example.
He got away with so many things so let's leave it at that.

If you want to punish him for breaking the law, then punish him for that under the law. But his wife is not entitled to what she did not work for and that is not an adequate punishment for his law breaking.

carefreewannabe: If you get married to a rich woman and you stay at home to take care of the kids and after you two divorce, the kids stay with you, she will have to pay you.

This is rubbish!

The possibilities of that is low, that is why these countries are comfortable with the laws and created the law.

The law is Sexist.

NO DEFENCE!

carefreewannabe: Women don't get custody. Married parents have a shared custody.

Men are not at the ex-wife's mercy. When you were married, you have a shared custody.

Not in the UK and US.

Maybe in Germany it is different, but by and large, many other countries have similar but less pronounced sexist custody processes like the US and UK.

Women get custody.

50calibre: And real wives do not aggravate their husbands to the point where he resorts to violence. It's that simple

Cretinous person, you are still advocating your wife-battery philosophy?

BananaBender: Yep Dickturd, I attended the best HBCU for undergrad? So what??

The only fo0l here is you and even the dumb you knows your grandpapa a*ss is too poor, shallow, and razz for me.

Stop 'chytting' sh1t to me, don't you hv sh1t to do?

person, the best is the one where people speak ebonics and the school is struggling to stay open?

kobonaire: hallucinations again ... PROZAC

You are a cretinous person!

tuoyoojo: Na wa. So this is the best the fibrosed slug in cranium can produce? Let's recap ur punch lines .."fukctard","mooron" "cretinous".

Come on imbecilee, I have come to expect more from u dan mere verbosities.by the way who u be,most likely u r staying in a foster home where inbreeding is encouraged.dem don give u food chop today so?

But what can I say, I pity ur wretched existence. When u combine a irredeemable cow plus a fuccked up genetic configuration with anger issues, The product is the pitable sagamite. Don't worry there is hope for u....just go to a mental facility and be locked up in one of their cold dark rooms.....oya start ranting again and tell the whole of nairaland that u have many loosed screws upstairs. I dey wait!!.....bingo!bingo!!

You are a cretinous person!

Did you give your money to a criminal calling himself pastor today so he can by himself a private jet while you are jumping gutter to get into your shithole?

JEEEEEEEEEEESUUUS! HALLELUJAH!

FIRE!

Sixix: And 'you' say black women ain't loyal , shooting that woman wouldn't be too extreme, I think

They are no different.

Most are as selfish and illogical.

Sixix: . You are simply paying for your past mistakes

I should pay for what your father, grand father, great-great-great grandfather and co did to my grandmother and co?

Sixix: I came across another judgement from the US. A lesbian couple got a child though a sperm donor. They had the child, along the line they went bankrupt and the court mandated the man to pay the child support.


[url] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10595447/Sperm-donor-must-pay-child-support-to-lesbian-couple-court-rules.html [/url]

The rationale: "The ruling suggests that in Kansas a man can only legally be considered a sperm donor if he goes through a doctor.
Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said: "A parent may not terminate parental rights by contract even when the parties have consented.
"The parties' self-designation of (Mr Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Mr Marotta) of parental rights and responsibilities."
Ben Swinnen, a lawyer for Mr Marotta, said his client had only been trying to help a couple who wanted a child and he would appeal the ruling."

This definitely fits into the sexist narrative.

I object to the logic that is always attacking men in the West.

That said, I have little pity for any person involved in the process of bringing a child into the world for an unnatural setting.

I have no pity for him.

carefreewannabe: It can happen IF people speak out. She isn't God.

Which people are going to speak it?

The Press?

No. They are part of the liberal fascist arsewipes who label themselves "progressives" and are only interested in misleading the public by propagating their funky, one-sided, "modern" ideologies that is biased to any group they have come to the conclusion as being historically "oppressed"

So park that.

The Government?

They are only interested in issues that helps improve their votes and this does not. Actually if they tried, the Press dogs would go on the attack and start creating the impression of a government that hate women. That is when they would start highlighting what proportion of the government leadership is female. Call it a male-dominated conspiracy. Start talking about some imaginary outrage by getting raving feminazis to come on TV to lambast the government (and, trust me, there are many of such crazy, selfish women around) as being "out of touch" (they love that moronic phrase in the UK). Every politician in the ruling party would be harassed and the party labelled "sexist" in headlines. The government would not want that, they always want to look cool and modern in the UK. They would rather win elections than do the right thing.

So park that.

The people?

Big and majority voice counts.

Now the population of UK is about 87% white. So women would be about half of these, majority are unlikely to support anything taking away their advantage. Afterall they are women: many are Selfish and illogical.

Is it the white men? HELL NO.

White men in the UK have been silenced and turned into wussy ediots. They have been silenced by labeling and being blamed for every injustice on Earth.

It is actually a crime in the UK to be a white, blue-eyed male. Anything you say is seen as xenophobic, racist, sexist, paedophilic, laddish etc.

I can say what the fck I want to say about white men, but the minute a white man says exactly the same thing I said about black people, all hell breaks loose.

Bloody stewpid country!

White men would never have the balls to come out and campaign on such because they have been trained that giving women advantage is what makes you a "real man" and a gentleman.

The minorities have little say. More so as half of them are Muslims who oppress their women. Those ones would just cause more outrage.

So it really is not as easy as that.

carefreewannabe: So if someone finds out that it is NOT his child 7 years later, he has to pay nonetheless?

Yep.

They have placed the "RESPONSIBILITY" on the men to ensure they find out within 2-5 years if they are the real fathers, otherwise they are liable to paying for the child even if the child is not theirs.

But the woman, as usual, has no "responsibility" to name the real father or make sure the child child knows his real father.

So much for the rubbish platitude of "in the best interest of the child". That is just a moronic subterfuge for "In the best interest of the woman".

carefreewannabe: You miss one point. The laws are not only made to favor women or even children. They are also made to reduce the cost for society. Nobody will confess it but this is the way it is. If a man lives and sleep with a woman and recognizes a child as his, then he has to pay. If he stops, society will have to. I don't feel like paying for the children of wicked women and gullible fathers.

If people are stupid, someone has to suffer.

And it is Sexist for any nation to always put the suffering on one sex.

carefreewannabe: Speak about America or the UK but not about "the West". This is imprecise and misleading.
It reminds me of people who think that Africa is a country.

I have not lived in majority of the other Western countries nor do I speak their local languages to understand their laws, but from the little news I get about them, they are all by and large the same line of thinking as UK and USA. Only that they are less pronounce.

I know men get screwed in Australia and Canada as well. Scandinavia is pro-women. And you yourself said Germany is just about trying to change now.

I have heard of a case of a man in Australia ordered by the courts to continue paying for his ex-wive's apartment and her Porsche while he is back living in his mum's house.

In Italy, Berlusconi was ordered to pat his ex-wife $148m. Money she could never earn with her own skills nor had she shown a propensity/potential to make before marrying him.

Divorce is a good measure. In many of these countries, it is all the same thing of:

- Men get screwed with assets being shared unfairly rather than based on actual and potential contributions.
- Women get custody
- Fathers are at the mercy of ex-wives to see their kids without any recourse to the courts and/or at huge legal costs

Judges make sure that assets are split equally, but they don't do that on custody and child-related issues. But you know what?

It is all in the best interest of the child.

[size=18pt]The Curious Case of Staff Sergeant Parsons[/size]

Sometimes it takes genuine injustice to put things in perspective. I was recently reminded of this during my clash with a prominent floral service that failed to deliver a chocolates order on Valentine’s Day… and the next day… and the next day… and as I write this opening paragraph. Nobody likes having their money held hostage. But, again, perspective has humbled my rage about the incident.

So begins the story of Marine Staff Sergeant Brandon Parsons and his role in one of the most baffling legal debacles in the history paternity cases.

A Superior Court of California judge has recently ruled that SSgt Parsons, a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, must continue to pay child support another twelve years for a child that ISN’T his—a payment that, counting the $50,000 he’s already remunerated his ex-wife, Crystal Parson, will put him on pace to pay over $250,000 before his legal obligation ends (twelve years from now), according to his lawyer. This payment, broken down, takes up approximately one-third of his current salary.

The judge, having made the decision because of a loophole in the events leading up to the ruling, didn’t hold back in his disdain for Parsons’ ex-wife’s actions. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the court’s ruling says it all:

While the court concludes that father was, in fact, despicably duped and victimized by Petitioner Crystal Parsons’s (hereinafter “Mother”) fraudulent concealment regarding biological paternity, a deception which has placed a significant, continuing financial burden upon Father, existing law, as applied to the facts of this case, precludes the court from setting aside the prior paternity determination or ordering genetic blood testing.

So how did this apparent calamity of justice happen? Here’s the gist:

After completing his first combat deployment in the Spring of 2005—of which he spent the majority of time fighting in Ramadi, Iraq—SSgt Parsons, then a twenty-year old corporal, returned to Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and immediately began a sexual relationship with his then-fiancé, Crystal Domenech. Their first sexual encounter was, according to court documents, on April 5, 2005.

https://www.rhinoden.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Parsons-225x300.jpeg

Seventeen days later, Crystal announced to Brandon that she was pregnant. Brandon, without questioning any aspects of her statement or the legitimacy of his biological paternity, decided to bump up their scheduled nuptials and spent the majority of his money (an estimated $20,000)—of which most came from his recent deployment—on her dream wedding.

What both Brandon and the court now know is that Crystal Domenech Parsons had been engaged in numerous sexual affairs while he was on deployment and, consequently, the child that Brandon raised—under the assumption he was legitimately the father—was indeed that of another man. (Crystal Parsons refuses to name the true identity of the biological father to this day.) Moreover, it was both alleged by Parsons and believed by the court that Crystal chose to sleep with then-Corporal Parsons purely to cover up her previous sexual encounters and pin the pregnancy on him, therefore having access to his military benefits.

It was after the end of Parsons’ second deployment to Iraq that Crystal Parsons, who continued to engage in extramarital affairs during his absence, made it clear she wanted a divorce—only after emptying his bank account and paying her personal bills in his name.

SSgt Parsons’ first inkling that he was not the biological father, brought to his attention by a former friend of Crystal, occurred in April of 2010, less than a year after their divorce. Within the month, Parsons had confirmed through an over-the-counter test by Identigene that the child he had been raising for four and a half years was not his.

“The worst part of being a paternity fraud victim is that nobody can help you,” SSgt Parsons told me in a recent phone interview. “When a guy is dealing with a break up, his buddy can say, ‘Dude, I’ve been there.’ Nobody knows what to say in that kind of situation. I broke down and the Marines around me just stood there.”

SSgt Parsons confronted his ex-wife soon after that. This is the exchange, according to Brandon Parsons, in his official court declaration:

After she had read the result I asked her to tell me the truth. She then began telling me that while I was in Iraq she had been raped. I told her that I did not believe her and to start telling me the truth for [Child’s name – Redacted] sake. I asked her how many men she had slept with while I was on deployment. When she did not answer at first I asked her if it had been more than 2 men and she nodded her head indicating “yes.” I asked her if it was more than 5 and again she nodded her head indicating “yes.” I asked if it was more than 7 men she had slept with. This time she screamed at me that she did not know how many. After she calmed down she told me that in March 2005 [a month before his return] she discovered she was pregnant and told her mother. She said that her mother told her that military spouse benefits were excellent and she should remember that she did not have insurance coverage for the hospital bills.

(It should be noted that, by all accounts, while Parsons lost the aforementioned legal case, the court never denied the plausibility of Parsons’ report of the events. In fact, the judge made it more than clear that Brandon Parsons’ side of the story was the most credible and that Crystal Parsons had acted “despicably” leading up to the ruling.)

After this exchange, Parsons convinced his ex to meet him for another DNA test, along with the child.

He continues in his statement:

When they came into the waiting room [Child’s name—Redacted] came over to me and was talking to me when Crystal’s mother came and grabbed him and pulled him away telling him not to talk to me because I was a stranger now. She also began calling me names. I asked her to please stop cursing at me before the child. This made her really angry and she looked right in my eyes and told me that I should have died in Iraq like I was supposed to do.

Parsons was unable to obtain a DNA test that day due to the vitriolic nature of Crystal and her mother, opting to leave after the two women threatened to call the police on him.

So why, after the court has concluded that Parsons’ description of the events is more grounded than his ex’s and his prior over-the-counter test is admissible as legitimate proof that he is not the father, does he still have to pay child support for a child that isn’t his? The answer—in all the convoluted facets of the case—is simple: timing.

He did not file a complaint against Crystal Parsons until early-December of 2012—more than two and half years after he discovered he was not the father of the child.

The court’s explanation:

Even if the fraud ground of Family Code section 2122(a) applied, Father’s set aside motion is untimely since such a motion must be brought “within one year after the date on which the complaining party either did discover, or should have discovered, the fraud.” Father’s discovery of the fraud occurred in April of 2010, i.e., a date more than 2 ½ years ago.

In laymen’s terms: he was too late. This is the loophole that Crystal Domenech Parsons won the ruling by—resulting in the court ordering SSgt Brandon Parsons to pay another twelve years of child support for a child that he now has no access to.

This is where things get really enraging: Crystal Parsons has recently filed a motion asking the court to order SSgt Parsons to pay $8,535 (on top of his ongoing child support) for the lawyer she hired to defend the mess she created in the first place. Additionally, on a more egregious level, the child—who Brandon Parsons adamantly maintains is the “biggest loser in all of this”—suffers from chronic hereditary illnesses that neither him or Crystal Parsons have. Her refusal and/or inability to name the biological father has greatly inhibited the child from getting the proper care he deserves. {OHHHH! I thought it was all about the "best interest of the Child"}

(Folks, in my humble opinion, Crystal Parsons is the living, breathing, real life bastard child of Snidely Whiplash and… Satan—who is possibly her mother.)

But Parsons, who has since been remarried, isn’t deterred. He says he’s going to fight it.

“If we [Marines] can take Iwo Jima, I can win this case,” he told me. “I want to win this for every Marine—for every man—who gets screwed like this.”

My initial impression of SSgt Parsons after our three hour conversation is that he’s an extremely optimistic individual with a cheerful demeanor—exactly what I’d expect from a Minnesotan who grew up a stone’s throw from the Canadian border.

Even after the disheartening outcome of his case, he continues to see the best in most people involved.

“The judge did a good job,” he said. “I could tell he did everything he could to get me out of this. He had his hands tied.”

“My attorney, Mr. Richard Lowe, was the only attorney in Southern California that even remotely had an idea as to how we should approach this problem and solve it,” he wrote me in an email after our conversation. “He’s an excellent attorney and an even better friend. He deserves praise and is helping several other paternity fraud victims as we speak.”

It’s hard to get angry about my twenty dollars at this point. (For the record, as I finish this story, I just received an email from the company, promising me a full refund.) Besides, there are certainly bigger travesties in America right now… as the case of SSgt Brandon Parsons has proved.

http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/the-curious-case-of-staff-sergeant-parsons/

Welcome to the Sexist West!

carefreewannabe: You are in the wrong country.

Germany:

A few years ago (2011) a father discovered that he was paying child support for a child that wasn't his. His ex-wife didn't want to reveal the biological father's identity. The court made her reveal it.


This year new bills have been passed in favor of fathers and everyone knows that there is more to do and that more will be done.

Welcome to Germany!

In the UK, we have the Sexist Theresa May as Home Secretary, so such things would not be happening soon.

By the way, the German courts should have made her pay him back every dime with interests. That said, it appears they are better than UK and USA.

In America, a man has up to 3-5 years to prove the child is not his, if he does not, then he is liable for paying child support till the child is 18 even though the child might not be his and could be a produce of cheating on him.

Why? Listen to the typical moronic argument.

"Because it is in the best interest of the child"

This enables some women to do what is called "Father Shopping". Which is basically, naming the most financially well-off former sexual partner during the perion as the father of the child and obviously it is ungentlemanly to ask for paternity test from a "victim" (according to society) you "used for sex" (Men are regarded as brutes and exploiters in Western society), so many men might just do "the right thing" or dumbly believe women don't cheat, and then the sexist law traps them after 5 years.

Obviously there is no legal obligation on women to be forthright and declarely lawfully and correctly who the father of the child is or declare if there is a doubt.

Why? Let me tell you why.

"Because women are not suppose to have responsibilities. Only men should.

Welcome to the world of "Hating Men" of the West.

[size=18pt]Jailed for Nonpayment of Child Support; But its Not His Child[/size]

The feminists have ratcheted up the laws against men to such an outrageous level that paternity fraud is not just ignored, but routinely rubber stamped by the courts. Whether one agrees with the concept of child support or not, virtually everyone can agree that jailing men for child support over children who are not theirs is morally wrong. Men are routinely sent to jail for falling behind on paying child support, even though debtors' prisons in the U.S. were mostly eliminated in the mid-nineteenth century.

The family courts and laws are set up in such a way that makes it very easy for a mother to collect child support, and very difficult for a man to avoid it. If a couple was married, the default law is that the man will be required to pay child support for any child born while they were married. In order for a man who isn't the father to escape this outcome, he must obtain a paternity test and take a series of legal steps in court. Most states only allow a short window of time for a man to do this. If a man is not aware of the child, which he may not be if his wife or former wife doesn't notify him of the child right away, he loses all chance to fight the child support, and will be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the next 18 years until the child becomes an adult.

Courts routinely order these judgments even if the man is unaware what is going on. A March 2003 Urban Institute study commissioned by the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) found that "most noncustodial parents appear to be served by 'substitute' service, rather than personal service, which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served."

Judges and prosecutors are fully aware of the DNA tests exonerating these men, but still rule against them. They hold men to super high technical standards that are not equally applied against women. Women can make all kinds of mistakes in court obtaining child support, and the courts will look the other way or help them. Men are not treated equally. Many fathers who find themselves in this situation are not wealthy, connected, or familiar with the law. I am an attorney and still have a difficult time figuring out how to file things correctly in family court.

An honest woman would never force a man to give her money for a child that was not his, but the family law system has been set up by feminists to punish men and make women feel good about taking child support from them.

Leigh Adelmann, a father of four from Arizona, remarried a few years ago. His second wife was three months pregnant. After being briefly married, his second wife moved out, telling him she needed space to think. She moved back in when she was eight months pregnant and had the baby. After giving birth, she left again, and filed for divorce three years later. The entire time, Leigh thought the child was his. She listed him as the father on the birth certificate. In 2010, she confessed to Leigh that the child was not his. She moved to Missouri and obtained an order for monthly child support of $910 from Leigh.

Leigh's first ex-wife, who makes a six-figure income and is remarried, insisted on receiving $2,000 each month in child support for their children, even though they both share custody of their children. Default child support orders assume that fathers are working full-time at minimum wage pay level or above. In reality, state audits reveal that 80 percent of default dads don't even make that. Leigh is a self-employed contractor in the construction business, and when the economy went sour, he got behind on child support to the two women. By the time all the child support and arrears had amassed last year, he was required to pay $4,800 monthly in child support to the two women. The absurdity of this can be seen when contrasted with the average income in Arizona, which is only $2,140 per month.

On October 25, 2012, Leigh was arrested for a warrant out of Missouri for failure to pay child support, and extradited by law enforcement to a jail in Missouri. His second ex-wife had applied for welfare in Missouri, and in return the state issued warrants for Leigh and her first ex-husband, who was also behind in child support. This was strange since it is virtually unheard of for a state to extradite anyone but the most violent criminals from other states. Usually a perpetrator must have committed a serious felony for a state to spend all the money to transport and house him. Even more bizarre was that both the courts and prosecutors in Missouri and Arizona were well aware that the child was not Leigh's, because I filed briefs on his behalf in both courts and informed them. Leigh recently found from the Arizona court that it is too late for him to dispute paternity.

After three months in the Missouri jail, Leigh was released. He is trying desperately to keep up with the child support payments (and last week was able to get the child support order to his first ex-wife reduced), but is terrified he will not be able to keep up and the Missouri court will throw him back in jail. His friends set up a website to raise money for Leigh's legal defense at freeleigh.weebly.com.

It is astonishing that women can force child support from their innocent ex-husbands without a conscience. Those children will suffer emotional damage growing up knowing they've been used as a tool of revenge to hurt someone. It risks giving sons a low view of women, possibly turning them into women-hating misogynists. Leigh's ex-wife could easily remove his name from the birth certificate and end all of this. {Of course the Western laws would always want to put power in the hands of women to make or destroy men}

One childless friend of mine did not find out from his ex-wife until a year after her child was born that she was pregnant. By then, it was too late to object to child support in court. He was required to pay child support until the child had grown up, even though he had no interaction with her.

[color=#990000]Brandon Parsons, a Marine who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, is forced to pay one-third of his salary to his ex-wife for another man's child.[/color] The court refused to reconsider the order because Brandon did not file the paternity legal pleadings with the court until two years after the child was born.

Even if the courts rule in a man's favor, the state may still come after him for unpaid child support. A court in Maine ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that was not his. However, the state revoked his driver's license and came after him for $11,450 in child support. When a man gets behind in child support, the state may cut off any of his licenses, including any professional licenses he may need to earn a living like teaching credentials and state bar memberships.

The tide is slowly turning in some places. Some states have passed paternity fraud legislation, although most of the laws are too weak to make much of a difference. In 2004, the California Court of Appeals ruled in County of Los Angeles v. Navarro that a six-month statute of limitations did not apply to set aside an old default judgment against a paternity fraud victim. Some fathers are obtaining justice by suing for damages, instead of trying to retroactively modify paternity and child support. In Tennessee, a court awarded damages in Hodge v. Craig to a man equal to the child support he'd paid over the past 15 years, under the common law remedy of intentional misrepresentation. Richard Rodwell, a British man whose wife fooled him into thinking children she had through affairs were his, was awarded $40,000 in damages in February from a lawsuit he filed against her.

These were the few fortunate men who had the resources to fight the system. In order to try and achieve justice, it requires a lot of money, time and perseverance by paternity fraud victims to maneuver the complex court system that is biased towards mothers. This situation can be fixed by holding the biological father responsible for child support, not the innocent man dragged into this by a greedy and ruthless ex-wife. Right now women are not prosecuted for paternity fraud. They should be, because it would stop a lot of the bad behavior.

It is brutally unfair as well as sexist towards men, that a mother can decide she does not want a child, and abort the child or place it after being born at a fire station, deserting the child with no consequences. She will never be required to pay child support. A man does not have that option. He cannot even stop the child from being aborted. It takes two people to have sex. Both should be treated equally under the law, instead of forcing men to act as a welfare system for women.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jailed-for-nonpayment-of-child-support-but-its-not-his-child-92576/

And some fcking c*nt wants me to be a "real man" and support giving women power but no responsibilities.

Bloody fcking sexist nations.

And they would be talking crap about making laws based on "Best interest of the child" especially when they want to milk men in divorce. When all they are doing is creating sexist laws that work of the presumption that "women are poor victims that need protection", while "men are brutal arseholes that should be suppressed and controlled".

All supported by sexist c*nts and moronic "real men".

[size=18pt]Mother allowed to keep baby secret from father[/size]



A woman who had a child after a one-night stand with a work colleague has won the right to keep the birth a secret from the father.

Three appeal court judges ruled that the mother has "the ultimate veto" over who should be told about her baby, and banned social workers from tracking down the father.

The 20-year-old mother had hidden her pregnancy from friends and family, and said that she wanted the girl to be adopted immediately after she had given birth.

However, a county court ordered that her parents and the father must be told after her legal guardian and local authority argued that they should be assessed to see if they were able and prepared to care for the child.

The woman then took the case to the Court of Appeal, where the judges ruled that no steps should be taken to identify the father or tell him about the child, now 19 weeks old.

There was also an order barring the authority from introducing the baby to any of the mother's family to assess them as potential carers.

They had learned about the child only when the local authority made inquiries.

In the ruling yesterday, Lady Justice Arden said the county court judge had made his order because he believed that the local authority had a duty under the law to find out as much information about the background of the family as they could.

But she said there was no such obligation - only a duty to serve the best interests of the child.

The judge said the mother had not realised until a late stage that she was pregnant and the woman did not think she could look after the child.

She kept her pregnancy a secret, living on her own and pursuing a career.

The judge said she asked for the child to be adopted, saying she did not believe her divorced parents could provide a home for the girl.

She stressed that she did not want the father to know anything about the child.

Lady Justice Arden, sitting with Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins, said this was not a violation of the father's rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no rights to be violated.

Lord Justice Thorpe said: "The law improves the opportunity of the child of anonymous birth to search out its biological origin.

"However, the ultimate veto remains with the mother. Registers of information are in place to lead the searching child to the mother's door but the child has no right of entry if the mother, despite counseling, refuses to unlock it."

The names and locations of everyone involved in the case cannot be published by order of the court.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570339/Mother-allowed-to-keep-baby-secret-from-father.html

Yeah right! The UK laws are indeed in the "Best interest of the child"!

How are they so sure the child was conceived as a result of a "one-night stand" if they have not asked the other party what was the nature of their relationship? The courts just believed this because she said so?

kobonaire: Thanks for the laugh ..... PROZAC!!!!!

person, go and worship another of Nigeria's politicians destroying your life.

BananaBender: Ifeanyi! Ifeanyi! Ifeanyi! How many times did I call you? Don't let me finish your NL career oh.

I am not your mate, stop 'famzing' me. You want to act like you know my name and you can't even spell it.

Do I look like sagamumu? You are not even a challenge for me, all I have to do is pull out my belt and discipline that your 4-corner shaped head.

LoL @ "it's now small for me so I gave it out". I pity the orphan that is stuck with that cheap fabric.

LMAO! Do they sell grown women shoes less than $30 bucks? Haba! At least, tax will take it to $34.50

person, you know you will fit the foool considering you attended Fisk University?

50calibre: Shola I dare you to if you can!! You will only end up like one of my many victims who were foolish enough to challenge me (eg sagamite my pet dog, I enslaved him, what do you think i would do to you?)


You have no shoe worth as much as that hoodie, besides its from two years ago, it's now small for me so I gave it out.

person, continue running from me and be claiming intelligence.

braine: Men's hair is really overrated. I love my bald head sha. #TeamBaldGuys

It is not over-rated.

It is better than bald!

That does not mean that being bald is awful though. I just have a deep hate for your woman-like illogical self-consolating declaration.

Nothing do your head sha! Always call a spade, a spade!

50calibre: Bla bla bla same old long story, typical sagamite.

Gosh!! You're relentless, don't you ever get tired of being stup*id?

Let me make this real simple for you; I'm better than you in every way possible, give up!! You've lost. How much more will have batter you before you take your place beneath me?

This is what happens to a dumb person like you when you step to me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC-0lDCgXCk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqcNP7_eATo

kushstalin: Bloody scum

BraniacX: chill boy!

Practice some self control!

Must you be on medication all the time to curb your aggresiveness?

See spittle coming out of your mouth and flying towards every corner.

Let me go get you your meds before you degenerate further.
No.
Let me go wear a HAMZAT suit first. . . . .with u spitting in the name of talking in every direction.

.
.
.
Here's your prozac refill.

Now, BEGONE 4RM HERE!

And now, i hose myself down with chlorine.

Any ZMAP shot to spare 4 me?
I just attended to a peculiar fellow.

Two more cretinous fcktards!

A nation full of cretins dumb to the bone.

How much did you give Pastor today before you returned to jump open gutter to get into your apartment?

JEEEEEEEESUS!