100 more welfare abuse inspectors
William H. Belway
Great news-the Ontario government has hired 100 more inspectors to check
out welfare abusers. These people will be checking out bank accounts,
assets, cash withdrawals as well as progress on job searches.
Candace, if you suspect a welfare cheat, you know, like some loser who
instead of looking for work stays 17 hours on irc at one time, or has been
on the system for longer than 2 years, pick up the phone and call
1-800-394-STOP. Do it for the safety of the children-we don't need antoher
generation of welfare lifers, and we certainly don't need Suzanne
Villeneuve types on welfare for 16 years and being _socialised_ into
leaving her young child in a locked car on a hot summer afternoon.
DO IT FOR THE LOVE OF THE CHILDREN
And, more bad news for welfare lifers-there will be no holiday welfare
bonus-try getting a job if welfare doesn't give you enough money
nkennedy
being treated.
You're just another victim of the Harris tax give away.
Neil K
"The eyeless "I" gapes." Victor Hugo
dz...@home.com
people who are able to work and are currently looking for a job. If they are
not looking for a job and not willing to work they shouldn't be allowed to
live off the system.
Over the years it has shown that families that live on welfare tend to pass
the same lifestyle on to their children. It goes on and on and needs to be
stopped. I'm on the side of work for welfare. (to a extent of hours worked
to total the payment recieved.) eg. if you recieve 550$ you should have to
work or donate time to a needy cause etc for 55hrs/per/month. (which is
nothing considering people are scrubbing toilets doing full time work for less
than 8$/hour. to make a living instead of living on welfare and expecting a
free ride.) When I was in my late teens myself and a few of my friends lived
off the system for a while and thought of it as a big joke. You get
your welfare check, and you could pick up groceries at the food bank, sharing
rent with 4 people you ended up with enough left to have a good amount of beer
for the month... There are many that live off the system like this and makes
it hard for the ones who really need it, and makes them look and be treated
like the rest.
Dean
dz...@home.com
In article <385338D0...@seascape.ns.ca>, nkennedy
nkennedy
remember his name.
But then, if I were that sick, I'd be inclined to hide too.
Neil K
"The eyeless "I" gapes" Victor Hugo
dz...@home.com
insult in any way. At least it gives others the opportunity to know what the
hell your talking about and make judgement for themselves.
Dean
dz...@home.com
In article <385340BD...@seascape.ns.ca>, nkennedy
E. Barry Bruyea
Belway) wrote:
>Great news-the Ontario government has hired 100 more inspectors to check
>out welfare abusers. These people will be checking out bank accounts,
>assets, cash withdrawals as well as progress on job searches.
>
>
>Candace, if you suspect a welfare cheat, you know, like some loser who
>instead of looking for work stays 17 hours on irc at one time, or has been
>on the system for longer than 2 years, pick up the phone and call
>1-800-394-STOP. Do it for the safety of the children-we don't need antoher
>generation of welfare lifers, and we certainly don't need Suzanne
>Villeneuve types on welfare for 16 years and being _socialised_ into
>leaving her young child in a locked car on a hot summer afternoon.
>
>
>DO IT FOR THE LOVE OF THE CHILDREN
Get a life. Surely our government can find better things to spend
money on without bringing in what are nothing more than just 100 more
bureaucrats to generate paper work and other crap. Save your cheers
for those welfare who are escaping the system and getting jobs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>And, more bad news for welfare lifers-there will be no holiday welfare
>bonus-try getting a job if welfare doesn't give you enough money
EBB
nkennedy
Slander? Insult?
Why on earth would a person who brags about stealing from the poor
box think that he could be slandered or insulted.
You stated that you drew welfare and on top of that took food from
the food bank. To quote from your post:
" When I was in my late teens myself and a few of my friends lived
off the system for a while and thought of it as a big joke. You get
your welfare check, and you could pick up groceries at the food bank,
sharing rent with 4 people you ended up with enough left to have a good
amount of beer for the month..."
Now that you have no need to steal from the poor in the same way,
you take another tack, you want to steal from the poor by getting a tax
rebate from "uncle Mike".
Did it ever occur to you how responsible you were in giving the
legitimate poor a bad rap, because you were stealing from the system.
Some people think the people who need help are faking it, because
people like you DELIBERATELY STOLE. Stole from the poor, and continue to
steal from the poor.
Then you expect that you should have input in welfare policy?
Don't you have any soul?
Neil K
"The eyeless "I" gapes." Victor Hugo
Orm
kids. If people can't afford to raise their own children then the children should
be given to parents that do care enough about them to be able to afford them.
Do what we can to roust the cheats so that the people in real need could have even
more.
No one has the right to bring children into the world and not be able to
look after them. I myself started out with grade eight. I married and had four
kids as I could afford them. I fed and clothed them. I got them all through
school. All the kids have degrees and are a hell of a lot smarter then I.
They earn more money then I ever dreamed of and I love it.
The point is that no one ever gave me welfare, paid for my food and
lodging or fed my kids or clothed them or fed them breakfast or paid for pre
school while both my wife and I worked.
You may size me up as a mean and pompous bastard with no heart. Well
I'll tell you, I like a lot of other kids of my time know what it was to have
nothing. My old man left my mother after the war with three boys to raise and
feed by herself. She raised us on the 15 dollars per month that my dad sent once
and a while (I can still remember standing at the post office day after day to see
if anything would come.) She did it by scrubbing floors, waitressing and doing all
the shit jobs that others didn't want. (All for us boys.) We picked up coal in
the winter and did odd jobs and I left school after grade eight so that my younger
brother could stay in school. So I know all about having nothing.
The point I make is that people have to learn to take some responsibility
for their own actions. If they leave school they must understand that they will
be poor. If they screw around, they will have kids and so on. Their actions are
their problem. I did not get them knocked up. I did not make them homeless. I
did not give some young unwed mother 2 or 3 kids to feed.
Yes it's all sad and my heart goes out to those who through "misfortune"
fall on hard times, but I, John Q Taxpayer should not have to wear it all.
dz...@home.com wrote:
> I don't see whats so wrong with getting people off welfare. Welfare is for
> people who are able to work and are currently looking for a job. If they are
> not looking for a job and not willing to work they shouldn't be allowed to
> live off the system.
> Over the years it has shown that families that live on welfare tend to pass
> the same lifestyle on to their children. It goes on and on and needs to be
> stopped. I'm on the side of work for welfare. (to a extent of hours worked
> to total the payment recieved.) eg. if you recieve 550$ you should have to
> work or donate time to a needy cause etc for 55hrs/per/month. (which is
> nothing considering people are scrubbing toilets doing full time work for less
> than 8$/hour. to make a living instead of living on welfare and expecting a
> free ride.) When I was in my late teens myself and a few of my friends lived
> off the system for a while and thought of it as a big joke. You get
> your welfare check, and you could pick up groceries at the food bank, sharing
> rent with 4 people you ended up with enough left to have a good amount of beer
> for the month... There are many that live off the system like this and makes
> it hard for the ones who really need it, and makes them look and be treated
> like the rest.
>
> Dean
> dz...@home.com
>
> In article <385338D0...@seascape.ns.ca>, nkennedy
> <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
> >William H Belway, its sad to know that people as sick as you are not
> >being treated.
> >You're just another victim of the Harris tax give away.
> >
> > Neil K
> >
> >
> >"The eyeless "I" gapes." Victor Hugo
nkennedy
I can see that your problem is a deep one. It must be awful living
your life and all the while feeling that in the name of justice you
never should have been born. I assume the same conditions that you now
want to apply to welfare parents you would apply to your father.
And if you were from an area where you picked coal, what welfare
services were available there that your mother spurned? As far as I know
there would be minimal church alms.
Neil K
"The eyeless "I" gapes" Victor Hugo
dz...@home.com
>Neil its common to quote the previous persons text if you wish to
>slander or insult in any way. ->dziff
>
>Slander? Insult?
> Why on earth would a person who brags about stealing from the poor
>box think that he could be slandered or insulted.
I used my previous experience with the system to show what some people are
doing.
> You stated that you drew welfare and on top of that took food from
>the food bank. To quote from your post:
>
>" When I was in my late teens myself and a few of my friends lived
>off the system for a while and thought of it as a big joke. You get
>your welfare check, and you could pick up groceries at the food bank,
>sharing rent with 4 people you ended up with enough left to have a good
>amount of beer for the month..."
>
> Now that you have no need to steal from the poor in the same way,
>you take another tack, you want to steal from the poor by getting a tax
>rebate from "uncle Mike".
It's not stealing from the poor unless its the ones that need it. I simply
stated welfare is for those that are able to work and should be looking for
work.
> Did it ever occur to you how responsible you were in giving the
>legitimate poor a bad rap, because you were stealing from the system.
> Some people think the people who need help are faking it, because
>people like you DELIBERATELY STOLE. Stole from the poor, and continue to
>steal from the poor.
> Then you expect that you should have input in welfare policy?
Don't you realize welfare is for those who need it. People who are looking
for jobs and are able to work. Period. I have repaid any money I would have
leached from the system in my few months on welfare when I was a teen 1000's
of times over. I donate time to needy causes, as well as donate money etc.
There are people who are collecting benifits and continue to collect as a way
of life not just a couple months, but years and years with no drive to get off
of welfare.
And I suppose you were a little angle when you were a kid and never did
anything wrong?? (bullshit !)
>
> Don't you have any soul?
>
> Neil K
>"The eyeless "I" gapes." Victor Hugo
dz...@home.com
family?? Shouldn't you plan a stable environment that you could provide the
basic necessities for a child??
Dean
dz...@home.com
In article <3853531F...@seascape.ns.ca>, nkennedy
> Neil K
>
>
>"The eyeless "I" gapes" Victor Hugo
nkennedy
Ah the Freudian slip. No, I was not before nor am I now, an angel, as
for the angles, I leave that kind of activity to you.
Neil K
"The eyeless "I" gapes." Victor Hugo
dz...@home.com
made good on them and contiue to try to prevent others from making the same
mistakes I did. Face it, when I did it I was a kid.
Question Neil and be honest. Have you, or are you currently accepting any
type of social assistance or know personally people that do and this is why
you may only see a small portion of the users and have made your decisions
based on this? Do you live in the Ottawa area, and have you been in a welfare
office?
And please stop with the insults and concentrate on the issue. Why do you feel
that it is not required to only allow people who only need social assistance
to be allowed to use the system and get the "freeloaders" off?
The costs of these career welfare recieptants surpass any costs of the
additional staff to review case by case and remove the un-needy from receiving
money when it should be going to ones that need it more.
Dean
dz...@home.com
In article <385357D4...@seascape.ns.ca>, nkennedy
Orm
No one has the right to bring children into the world and not be able to
look after them. ->Orm
I can see that your problem is a deep one. It must be awful living
your life and all the while feeling that in the name of justice you
never should have been born. I assume the same conditions that you now
want to apply to welfare parents you would apply to your father.
And if you were from an area where you picked coal, what welfare
services were available there that your mother spurned? As far as I know
there would be minimal church alms.
Neil K
"The eyeless "I" gapes" Victor Hugo
What color is the fucking sky in your world?
Are you some kind of moron? Maybe you should not
have been born you dolt.
> I can see that your problem is a deep one.
My problem?????? My pop was off fucking some young honey that he liked better then my mom. It had nothing to do with me. What are you, some kind of very amateur shrink that does not know his ass from a hole in the ground?
>"And if you were from an area where you picked coal"
The fucking Toronto area you fucking idiot. (You were thinking Springhill maybe!) Did you know that all the trains used to use coal in this country you fucking moron. Coal was all over every track in the country, no, every track in the fucking world.
>"SPURNED"
Is your fucking mind is on mars? What are you some sort
of snot nosed kid?
>"minimal church alms."
Stick the alms up your ass you fool. What world do you
live in?
dz...@home.com
Take it easy Orm and don't let Neil get to you. He seems to just be trying to
get a rise out of us with direct insults and no real discussion in reference
to the issue at hand.
Dean
dz...@home.com
In article <38532583...@sympatico.ca>, Orm <sp...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>--------------F9FFDA254A55A0EB5EA1DD7E
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>--------------F9FFDA254A55A0EB5EA1DD7E
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
>nkennedy wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>No one has the right to bring children into the world
>and not be able to
><br>look after them. ->Orm
><p> I can see that your problem is a deep one. It must
>be awful living
><br>your life and all the while feeling that in the name of justice you
><br>never should have been born. I assume the same conditions that you
>now
><br>want to apply to welfare parents you would apply to your father.
><br> And if you were from an area where you picked coal, what
>welfare
><br>services were available there that your mother spurned? As far as I
>know
><br>there would be minimal church alms.
><p> &nbs
>p;  
>;
>Neil K
><p>"The eyeless "I" gapes" Victor Hugo</blockquote>
>
><p><br>What color is the fucking sky in your world?
>Are you some kind of moron? Maybe you should not
>have been born you dolt.
><br><b><u>> I can see that your problem is a deep one.</u></b>
><br>My problem?????? My pop was off fucking some young honey that
>he liked better then my mom. It had nothing to do with
> me.
>What are you, some kind of very amateur shrink that does not know his ass
>from a hole in the ground?<b></b>
><p><b>><u>"And if you were from an area where you picked coal"</u></b>
><br>The fucking Toronto area you fucking idiot. (You were thinking Springhill
>maybe!) Did you know that all the trains used to use coal in this
>country you fucking moron. Coal was all over every track
>in the country, no, every track in the fucking world.
><p><b><u>>"SPURNED" </u></b>
><br>Is your fucking mind is on mars? What are you some sort
>of snot nosed kid?
><p><b><u>>"minimal church alms."</u></b>
><br>Stick the alms up your ass you fool. What world do you
>live in?
><br> </html>
>
>--------------F9FFDA254A55A0EB5EA1DD7E--
>
Orm
this guy is simply an idiot.
nkennedy
any type of social assistance or know personally people that do and this
is why you may only see a small portion of the users and have made your
decisions based on this? Do you live in the Ottawa area, and have you
Ok Dean, lets change the tone, let's both be honest.
You can start by admitting that your little story is just your
interpretation of the urban legend of welfare. You never collected
welfare, did you?
Don't you see the damage that is done to good people by this kind of
"story".
I admit there is some fraud, but as Berry Burya posted; to police it
would be cost ineffective. Barry, by the way is no "bleeding heart"
liberal, but a very conservative person, who does pay attentin to
efficiency. I suggest you ask him for numbers on this type of thing.
No, I never collected welfare, but know many people who have.
I did work out of an office that also housed the local welfare office,
so I'm familiar with the scam part, and realize what a small portion
this is.
I'm also aware that many proud people would do without rather than
be treated with suspicion. In fact, it is your your obvious
unfamiliarity with welfare people that tells me that you didn't meet
them week after week while you collected welfare.
Further to that, my wife works for a local St. Vincent De Paul.
She and her coworkers can predict when there will be a "run" on their
services as the poor run out, or try to keep up with Christmas, or the
start of school. They take from their meager food budget in an attempt
to make their kids feel that they may "fit in"
No Dean I'm not from Ottawa, I'm from New Waterford NS, a town going
through a particularly rough period now.
Believe me there are people who need, too many of them. And if I
thought that abuse of the system was a factor in the cost of providing
services, I'd be demanding that it be policed better.
But "'taint so"
Regards
dz...@home.com
>Question Neil and be honest. Have you, or are you currently accepting
>any type of social assistance or know personally people that do and this
>is why you may only see a small portion of the users and have made your
>decisions based on this? Do you live in the Ottawa area, and have you
>been in a welfare office? ->dzill
>
>Ok Dean, lets change the tone, let's both be honest.
> You can start by admitting that your little story is just your
>interpretation of the urban legend of welfare. You never collected
>welfare, did you?
Unfortunately I did collect for a few months in my late teens when I had never
workded a day in my life and it was the easy way out. After being on welfare
for a few months I got a job cleaning toilets for 7$ an hour. A proud 7$ a
hour because I worked for it. About 5 years ago I had to recieve 1 welfare
check between jobs when I was layed off from my employer and the standard
waiting period to collect unemployment was a couple months. (too long to go
without money) After a 2 months of not finding a job I made the decision to
take a OSAP loan (once again money from the government) and took a IT course
which provided me with a future, and the ability to "pay back" all that I had
taken++ from the government/society.
> Don't you see the damage that is done to good people by this kind of
>"story".
> I admit there is some fraud, but as Berry Burya posted; to police it
>would be cost ineffective. Barry, by the way is no "bleeding heart"
>liberal, but a very conservative person, who does pay attentin to
>efficiency. I suggest you ask him for numbers on this type of thing.
The fraud numbers are there. I know people who collect Social assistance that
should be working and are more than qualified to work. I have spend time in
the past (not last few years) with others waiting in the welfare offices here
in Ottawa to pickup checks or for them to apply. I honestly can not see how
someone could spend years on welfare and not beable to get a job.
> No, I never collected welfare, but know many people who have.
>I did work out of an office that also housed the local welfare office,
>so I'm familiar with the scam part, and realize what a small portion
>this is.
> I'm also aware that many proud people would do without rather than
>be treated with suspicion. In fact, it is your your obvious
>unfamiliarity with welfare people that tells me that you didn't meet
>them week after week while you collected welfare.
Once again suspicion would be more to users of the system over long periods of
time. If you don't find work after a few months your looking for the wrong
job or expectations are to high, or just not looking.
> Further to that, my wife works for a local St. Vincent De Paul.
>She and her coworkers can predict when there will be a "run" on their
>services as the poor run out, or try to keep up with Christmas, or the
>start of school. They take from their meager food budget in an attempt
>to make their kids feel that they may "fit in"
> No Dean I'm not from Ottawa, I'm from New Waterford NS, a town going
>through a particularly rough period now.
I know the east coast is rought due to high unemployment and alot of seasonal
based work. ( my wife is from NS)
In states of tough times social assistance programs allow for moves accross
provinces to better chances of employment and I believe they still assist in
this. I know it can be hard to have to move from friends and where you have a
"foundation", but you need to provide for yourself and not be dependant on the
government getting around to providing jobs in the local areas.
Note: You only see starving people in the cities begging for food and money.
You would never see them out in the country because the farmers would take
them in a second and give room and board in exchange for work. Problem, some
just don't want to work, and are content with living off the system.
Donald J. Dickson
(William H. Belway) wrote:
> Great news-the Ontario government has hired 100 more inspectors to check
> out welfare abusers. These people will be checking out bank accounts,
> assets, cash withdrawals as well as progress on job searches.
>
It would be a lot more productive if they were willing to spend half as
much effort recovering the overdue child support payments so that people
who are reduced to needing welfare would be paid by the spouses who are
skipping out. But of course headlines like "Gov't fails to collect support
payments" isn't nearly as politically valuable as "Gov't cracks down on
wefare fraud".
--
Don Dickson
Remove first "x" from xcx666 to reply by email.
dz...@home.com
deadbeat spouses are unable to make the payments even if they wanted to due
to lack of employment/low paying jobs/high debt ratio (welfare inspectors
could get these deadbeats off Social Assistance and back in the workforce if
they are forced to do so, yet you have to remember that for the people
recieving support for children should not rely on it as a primary provider for
their family and should take the opportunity to make sure if the support is
not no longer recieved they can still survive. eg. supporter loosing thier
employment/dying etc
I have seen many single parents who are content with just collecting a monthly
check from their spouse to support children and themselves, and not even
considering getting off their butts and getting a job. There is no reason why
a single parent recieving payments to support children etc. should be home all
day long unless they are raising a baby and even still they may consider child
care so they can work to beable to more secure necessities for thier family.
Dean
dz...@home.com
Orm
> In article <xcx666-1212...@252.224/27.18.226.209.in-addr.arpa>, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald J. Dickson) wrote:
> >In article <82uu6i$aqh$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> >(William H. Belway) wrote:
> >
> >> Great news-the Ontario government has hired 100 more inspectors to check
> >> out welfare abusers. These people will be checking out bank accounts,
> >> assets, cash withdrawals as well as progress on job searches.
> >>
> >
> >It would be a lot more productive if they were willing to spend half as
> >much effort recovering the overdue child support payments so that people
> >who are reduced to needing welfare would be paid by the spouses who are
> >skipping out. But of course headlines like "Gov't fails to collect support
> >payments" isn't nearly as politically valuable as "Gov't cracks down on
> >wefare fraud".
> >
>
> Agreed, but getting "bood from a stone" can sometimes be difficult. Many
> deadbeat spouses are unable to make the payments even if they wanted to due
> to lack of employment/low paying jobs/high debt ratio (welfare inspectors
> could get these deadbeats off Social Assistance and back in the workforce if
> they are forced to do so, yet you have to remember that for the people
> recieving support for children should not rely on it as a primary provider for
> their family and should take the opportunity to make sure if the support is
> not no longer recieved they can still survive. eg. supporter loosing thier
> employment/dying etc
Even if they are broke it would not kill the rotten deadbeat bastards to be there for their kids. Like father and son
night. (costs nothing) My brother and I were recalling the old days the other night and of all the things one forgets in a
lifetime, guess what we both have burnt into our memory?
As boys, our mother had taking us into the city to the wedding reception of a cousin and while we were there we met our
dad. Could you, in your wildest dreams, imagine what our pop did? He put both my brother and I out on the street, because
our clothes were to shabby to be at a reception. We simply sat on the curb and cried our hearts out, until our mom could beg
off, come out, and take us home.
We knew we were shabby, we knew we were poor and and we knew why we were shabby and poor, but what we did not know, was
the length to which a dead beat father would go to in order to hide just how rotten a provider and person he really was.
Terrie Meehan
to get people off welfare. Into glorified security guards.
Newsflash: if a person cannot afford transportation(to the interview),
telephone service (for the empoyer to call back) or even basic laundry
facilities (clean clothing for interview) a job search is futile.
William H. Belway <cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<82uu6i$aqh$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
|
|
|
| Great news-the Ontario government has hired 100 more inspectors to check
| out welfare abusers. These people will be checking out bank accounts,
| assets, cash withdrawals as well as progress on job searches.
|
|
{ a bunch of verbal compost snipped}
Burt
hopefully useful. Which equates to a hundred less unemployed people drawing
welfare or EI or at the very least takes them out of other jobs to provide
openings for others who are looking for work. (God what a mouthful .... Sorry)
What pisses me off is that Harris has found it necessary to pay some firm 50
million in order to collect 63 million from welfare cheaters or deadbeat dads
(whatever). AND HE IS RENEWING THAT SAME DEAL.
And did I hear right when someone said the minimum wage for the orchestra in
Toronto was 62K$
Terrie Meehan
Corporate cheats get a blind eye turned. I have heard of several deadbeat
non-custodial parents continually racking up support payments then getting
the judge to cut the amount owed because of 'hardship' when they finally
are caught and brought to court, but the person subsisting on aprox. $560 a
month is being scrutinized in case they try to get a toehold out of
poverty.
When companys and banks. are announcing profits and job cutbacks at the
same time I wonder how many of those people off the unemployment stats.
just gave up.
--
Ter...@canada.com
Chocoholic, mom, cat 'owner',chronic volunteer
take the challenge> http://www.ncf.ca/~eb684
ICQ me :) 42967627
Burt <sh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<3853F12E...@sympatico.ca>...
Peter Kolding
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <82uu6i$aqh$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>(William H. Belway) wrote:
>
>> Great news-the Ontario government has hired 100 more inspectors to check
>> out welfare abusers. These people will be checking out bank accounts,
>> assets, cash withdrawals as well as progress on job searches.
>>
>
>It would be a lot more productive if they were willing to spend half as
>much effort recovering the overdue child support payments so that people
>who are reduced to needing welfare would be paid by the spouses who are
>skipping out. But of course headlines like "Gov't fails to collect support
>payments" isn't nearly as politically valuable as "Gov't cracks down on
>wefare fraud".
The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent. In
Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no choice to
create children, and have no ability to create children. They
therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
responsibility is to support themselves. To argue otherwise is simply
the rant of criminal slavers, like yourself.
Stephen Gilman
> That's peanuts!!!!!!!! At least he's hired a hundred guys to do something
> hopefully useful. Which equates to a hundred less unemployed people drawing
> welfare or EI or at the very least takes them out of other jobs to provide
> openings for others who are looking for work. (God what a mouthful .... Sorry)
>
> What pisses me off is that Harris has found it necessary to pay some firm 50
> million in order to collect 63 million from welfare cheaters or deadbeat dads
> (whatever). AND HE IS RENEWING THAT SAME DEAL.
>
> And did I hear right when someone said the minimum wage for the orchestra in
> Toronto was 62K$
When I was at the University of Windsor, the burger-flippers and
groundskeepers went on strike. Being a bunch of socially-minded and
impressionable students we supported them, at first.
Then we found out that burger-flippers made $14 an hour.
--
########################################################
# Stephen R. Gilman # ICQ:22503364 # www.ncf.ca/~ao668 #
########################################################
"Everybody's stupid but me" --Homer Simpson
dz...@home.com
cigarettes (go to any welfare office on a busy day and you'll see half or
more of them outside smoking !!). Amazing how they can afford that but not
busfare or laundry costs. (NOTE: you can get bus tickets from the welfare
office if you need them, as well as startup costs if you land a job. ie.
workboots.)
Dean
dz...@home.com
In article <01bf44cd$c29e4540$4c897586@thinkpad>, eb...@freenet.carleton.ca
(Terrie Meehan) wrote:
>That is where the money went that was supposed to go into training programs
>to get people off welfare. Into glorified security guards.
>
>Newsflash: if a person cannot afford transportation(to the interview),
>telephone service (for the empoyer to call back) or even basic laundry
>facilities (clean clothing for interview) a job search is futile.
>William H. Belway <cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
><82uu6i$aqh$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>|
>|
>|
>| Great news-the Ontario government has hired 100 more inspectors to check
>| out welfare abusers. These people will be checking out bank accounts,
>| assets, cash withdrawals as well as progress on job searches.
>|
>|
dz...@home.com
>
> Even if they are broke it would not kill the rotten deadbeat bastards
> to be there for their kids. Like father and son
>night. (costs nothing) My brother and I were recalling the old days the other
> night and of all the things one forgets in a
>lifetime, guess what we both have burnt into our memory?
I know what you mean my father left at a very young age (3) and came back for
us (my brother and I) for about a year when I was 9 then he dissapeared once
again, no father son days, no money, no nothing. He never contributed to my
growing up in any way. I however was lucky enough until the age of 15 to not
live in poverty which made it much easier. I did however experience poverty
for a few years when I hit the streets at age 15 and found it damn hard, not
eating for days since I tried to keep my pride and not ask for help.
>
> As boys, our mother had taking us into the city to the wedding
> reception of a cousin and while we were there we met our
>dad. Could you, in your wildest dreams, imagine what our pop did? He put
> both my brother and I out on the street, because
>our clothes were to shabby to be at a reception. We simply sat on the curb
> and cried our hearts out, until our mom could beg
>off, come out, and take us home.
>
> We knew we were shabby, we knew we were poor and and we knew why we
> were shabby and poor, but what we did not know, was
>the length to which a dead beat father would go to in order to hide just how
> rotten a provider and person he really was.
This is why I mentioned it is extremely crucial for a single parent not to
depend on being supported from the "other ex-spouse" if they can. Even if
they are being paid child support they should take the opportunity to educate
themselves in a career field that would not let them be dependant on support
from ex-spouse or social services.
Dean
dz...@home.com
Michael
or not the state should provide cigarettes and cablevision to the
Canadian "poor", third world babies die of starvation at the rate of
several each minute.
My vote is to reduce the welfare checks by an amount equal to the
monthly cable bill and send that money to the third world to buy food
and contraceptives.
Michael
Peter Kolding
>
>Peter Kolding wrote in message ...
>
>>The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent.
>In
>>Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
>choice to
>>create children, and have no ability to create children. They
>>therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
>>responsibility is to support themselves.
>
>"Men do not create children"?
>
>Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
>
>
>
Certainly not from the belly of my father..
lb
Peter Kolding wrote in message ...
>The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent.
In
>Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
choice to
>create children, and have no ability to create children. They
>therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
>responsibility is to support themselves.
"Men do not create children"?
Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
lb
--To post, or not to post - that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous flames,
Or to take arms against a fustian sea, --
apologies to Shakespeare
dz...@home.com
have cable. Granted cable should not be option for people on social
assistance, they should be out looking for a job or educating themselves not
watching the Jerry Springer Show....
Dean
dz...@home.com
me
wrote:
>>>The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent.
>>In
>>>Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
>>choice to
>>>create children, and have no ability to create children. They
>>>therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
>>>responsibility is to support themselves.
>>"Men do not create children"?
>>
>>Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
>
>Certainly not from the belly of my father..
You would not have been in the belly of your mother had it not been
for your father's semen. Men, create children as well as women do.
This is the sort of thing you learn in health class in elementary
school. I believe someone needs to go back and learn a little more
about biology.
Donald J. Dickson
Mr Kolding is probably in arrears on his child support payments. That's
why he doesn't want men to take responsibility for their children.
john ramsay
>
> Peter Kolding wrote in message ...
>
> In
> >Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
> choice to
> >create children, and have no ability to create children. They
> >therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
> >responsibility is to support themselves.
>
> "Men do not create children"?
>
> Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
>
Mr. Kolding must be a product of virgin birth.
A second coming without benefit of a first -:)
Michael T. Richter
news:3853658E...@seascape.ns.ca...
> You can start by admitting that your little story is just your
> interpretation of the urban legend of welfare. You never collected
> welfare, did you?
Dean may or may not have. I have. For 18 months in Regina, SK I was on
welfare. And I saw *LOTS* of welfare scamming.
I saw people whose "job search" activity consisted of deliberately sending
resumes to places where they couldn't possibly have sufficient
qualifications to get jobs. Others would go to job interviews after
deliberately putting on the filthiest clothing they could find just to
ensure they wouldn't get offered a position. (That last one always looked
really good in the social worker's eyes: "I had three interviews last week.
Maybe one of them will pan out.")
I saw people who were taking food from the food bank so that they could pay
for their cigarettes with their welfare cheques. I knew two different
people who were collecting welfare under two sets of names each. (One of
them may have been collecting under more than two sets of names -- that last
one also stiffed me for two months' rent and stole a few of my personal
items.)
And yes, indeed, I met lots of youths who left home and went on welfare, not
because they had real problems at home, but because they didn't like living
on the farm.
> Don't you see the damage that is done to good people by this kind of
> "story".
Yes. The rotten apple spoils the bin. But the fact is that these "stories"
are true. They happen. And every one of these fucking leeches we eliminate
from the welfare roles allows more money to go to those who actually need
it.
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Michael
>
> There are people out there on social assistance that do need it and they don't
> have cable. Granted cable should not be option for people on social
> assistance, they should be out looking for a job or educating themselves not
> watching the Jerry Springer Show....
I was being facetious actually. I don't really want welfare rates to be
lowered. Now that the system is tightening up and the cheaters are being
kicked off, perhaps the money saved should be funnelled back to those
who are genuinely needy.
Michael
Donald J. Dickson
Good line John, :-))
Mr Kolding should also be reminded that just as men have no independent
means of producing a child, neither does a woman. Even the "virgin birth"
required intervention by the Holy Spirit.
MIKE
the fumes, and had to quit work. A few weeks later my employer went out of
bussiness. At the time that I quit,on some days I was so out of breath I was
unable to walk. I ended up on welfare and gradually my lungs got a little
better. I was on welfare for five years. Many people seen me as a "bum" My
wife left me and our daughter. So here I was a single father with a young
child on welfare. Well I went to school, graduated from high school at the
age of 34. Then went on to college to earn a computer programming degree. I
graduated that one with honours. So, where am I now? I am about to apply for
wefare again. I refuse to spray paint. Everywhere I go to apply for any kind
of computer job, they want experience. Now I am still broke, except now I
have a wall full of certifications, and a $30,000 student loan to pay back.
Here is my budjet:
rent 770
student loan payments 580
Food 300
total 1650
Of course this excludes a lot: hydro, gas, phone etc
My total income right now is $400 working part time as a cleaner in a
hotel. I can't do any physical work, even the cleaning job gives me severe
chest pains. But nobody will hire me to work at a desk. Tell me, Do you
think I deserve welfare? Am I a "bum" for applying? I have offered $5000 to
anybody who finds me a job paying $30,000 working at a desk. I am still
offering that. I went to the welfare office and asked them if they can help
me find work. I gave them my resume. They sent me to auto body shops to
apply for spray painting jobs. I refused. And yes I have cable and the
internet, and a car too. Soon I will quit the hotel, fuck my student loan
and spend the rest of my life on welfare. I give up, I surrender. I am just
tired of trying. Welfare is easier.
Peter Kolding
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <385476ea...@news.cyberus.ca>, tr...@jammys.net (me) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:49:30 -0800, Peter Kolding <pkol...@cts.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>>The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent.
>> >>In
>> >>>Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
>> >>choice to
>> >>>create children, and have no ability to create children. They
>> >>>therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
>> >>>responsibility is to support themselves.
>>
>> >>"Men do not create children"?
>> >>
>> >>Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
>>
>> >
>> >Certainly not from the belly of my father..
>>
>> You would not have been in the belly of your mother had it not been
>> for your father's semen. Men, create children as well as women do.
>> This is the sort of thing you learn in health class in elementary
>> school. I believe someone needs to go back and learn a little more
>> about biology.
>
>Mr Kolding is probably in arrears on his child support payments. That's
>why he doesn't want men to take responsibility for their children.
Mr. Dickson probably just can't face the fact that no matter what he
thinks or wants, his wife will or will not have children upon her own
decision alone. He doesn't have anything to do with it.
Peter Kolding
>On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:49:30 -0800, Peter Kolding <pkol...@cts.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>>The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent.
>>>In
>>>>Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
>>>choice to
>>>>create children, and have no ability to create children. They
>>>>therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
>>>>responsibility is to support themselves.
>
>>>"Men do not create children"?
>>>
>>>Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
>
>>
>>Certainly not from the belly of my father..
>
>You would not have been in the belly of your mother had it not been
>for your father's semen. Men, create children as well as women do.
>This is the sort of thing you learn in health class in elementary
>school. I believe someone needs to go back and learn a little more
>about biology.
That men create, and are therefore responsible for children is taught
in elementary school is the school system's problem. If a female
doesn't want to create a child, she doesn't have to. Men don't create
children, can't create children, and are therefore not responsible for
supporting them in any way.
Peter Kolding
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <3854A7BE...@mergetel.com>, jra...@mergetel.com wrote:
>
>> lb wrote:
>> >
>> > Peter Kolding wrote in message ...
>> >
>> > >The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent.
>> > In
>> > >Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
>> > choice to
>> > >create children, and have no ability to create children. They
>> > >therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
>> > >responsibility is to support themselves.
>> >
>> > "Men do not create children"?
>> >
>> > Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
>> >
>> > lb
>>
>> Mr. Kolding must be a product of virgin birth.
>>
>> A second coming without benefit of a first -:)
>
>Good line John, :-))
>
>Mr Kolding should also be reminded that just as men have no independent
>means of producing a child, neither does a woman.
Pardon me for thinking, but women produce children, not men. Men have
no means, independent _or otherwise_, of producing a child.
dz...@home.com
30,000$ entrance positions are not very common in the Ottawa area. The average
is around 12$/hour and most are with local agencies not major companies
themselves. Try applying at the local agencies like Olsten in Kanata, they
hold most of the major contracts like Compaq, Microsoft etc in the Ottawa
region. They will do some quick tests and provided you're knowledgeable they
should beable to place you right away. Unfortunately your best bet may be to
locate outside of the Ottawa area to find work. Put your resumes up on web
sites such as monster.ca and you should have no problem finding something
elsewhere (they usually pay more than Ottawa, since Ottawa has some of the
most qualified experienced techs in Canada/US competition here is fierce.)
Provided you have a disablilty you should not be collecting welfare, but
disability. Difference once again. Welfare is for those able to work (average
Joe able to atleast mop floors etc), but since you have a medical condition
you may want to go the other route until you are able to find work or ask them
to help out in placements.
Don't give up, if you keep trying eventually it will pay off. Hell I was
one of those welfare bums, out of school at 15 and pretty much voted not to go
anywhere in life other than maybe to jail. Worked scrubbing toilets got
nowhere after 5years, pumped gas for 5 years still got nowhere, eventually
went to tech school like you, and studied my ass off all hours of the day and
night and even out of school spend 3 months shovelling cow shit before I
realized all the schooling I had and the promisses they made me of what I was
worth without experience was all lies. Started at around 27,500 for my first
couple years till I got experience then it payed off. And I started off doing
application support, not what I was trained for, but hey it got me in the door
working.
Don't forget to apply for your "loan forgiveness" portion of your student loan
if you haven't allready. (OSAP gives percentage off) on 30,000 its around
6-8,000 $ makes a huge diff when your paying it off.
Dean
dz...@home.com
In article <zWl54.25315$eh2.4...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "MIKE"
Donald J. Dickson
<pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Dickson probably just can't face the fact that no matter what he
> thinks or wants, his wife will or will not have children upon her own
> decision alone. He doesn't have anything to do with it.
Well, if you are married, I can certainly see why your wife wouldn't want
the world populated by anyone carrying your low level genetics. It would
set the human race back a few hundred years.
Michael
>
> In article <3854A7BE...@mergetel.com>, jra...@mergetel.com wrote:
>
> > lb wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Kolding wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > >The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent.
> > > In
> > > >Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
> > > choice to
> > > >create children, and have no ability to create children. They
> > > >therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
> > > >responsibility is to support themselves.
> > >
> > > "Men do not create children"?
> > >
> > > Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
> > >
> > > lb
> >
> > Mr. Kolding must be a product of virgin birth.
> >
> > A second coming without benefit of a first -:)
>
> Good line John, :-))
>
> Mr Kolding should also be reminded that just as men have no independent
> required intervention by the Holy Spirit.
You never saw Jurassic Park then.
Michael
Peter Kolding
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <fe3d5skqk6vlq1lf0...@4ax.com>, Peter Kolding
><pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Mr. Dickson probably just can't face the fact that no matter what he
>> thinks or wants, his wife will or will not have children upon her own
>> decision alone. He doesn't have anything to do with it.
>
>Well, if you are married, I can certainly see why your wife wouldn't want
>the world populated by anyone carrying your low level genetics. It would
>set the human race back a few hundred years.
Thanks for finally admitting men do not create children, and thus have
no responsibilty for supporting them.
Donald J. Dickson
<pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
It takes two to plant the seed and two to raise the child. Fathering a
child should also includes responsibility for raising the child. There are
too many people running around fathering children who don't give a damn
about the consequences. I for one am tired of paying tax money into
welfare for these assholes who believe they can walk away from a situation
in which they willing participated because they think raising a child is
women's work.
Donald J. Dickson
> > Donald J. Dickson wrote:
> >
> > Mr Kolding should also be reminded that just as men have no independent
> > means of producing a child, neither does a woman. Even the "virgin birth"
> > required intervention by the Holy Spirit.
>
> You never saw Jurassic Park then.
>
When cloning children from a single parent becomes standard practice then
Mr Kolding's position would be reasonable. Until that time I think that a
man should be at least 50% responsible for raising raising the children he
has fathered.
Dave Smith
> It takes two to plant the seed and two to raise the child. Fathering a
> child should also includes responsibility for raising the child. There are
> too many people running around fathering children who don't give a damn
> about the consequences. I for one am tired of paying tax money into
> welfare for these assholes who believe they can walk away from a situation
> in which they willing participated because they think raising a child is
> women's work.
It also takes two to break up a relationship, and I would suggest that
it is not
always just a matter of a guy walking away from his responsibilities.
Our
welfare system, alimony and child support settlements also make it easy
for a
woman to bail out of a relationship. They no longer have to endure an
unhappy
union just for(relative) financial security. Women are practically
guaranteed
custody if they show the slightest interest in it. The readiness to
grant
alimony and support payments make it pretty clear that society still
views child
rearing to be women's work and that a man is useful only as a paycheque.
E. Barry Bruyea
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <kurd5scpg3runblvn...@4ax.com>, Peter Kolding
><pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:21:34 GMT, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald
>> J. Dickson) wrote:
>> >
>> >Well, if you are married, I can certainly see why your wife wouldn't want
>> >the world populated by anyone carrying your low level genetics. It would
>> >set the human race back a few hundred years.
>>
>> Thanks for finally admitting men do not create children, and thus have
>> no responsibilty for supporting them.
>
>It takes two to plant the seed and two to raise the child. Fathering a
>child should also includes responsibility for raising the child. There are
>too many people running around fathering children who don't give a damn
>about the consequences. I for one am tired of paying tax money into
>welfare for these assholes who believe they can walk away from a situation
>in which they willing participated because they think raising a child is
>women's work.
>
>--
>Don Dickson
I agree with you Don, but I would also extend the condemnation to
those single women who 'choose' to have a child and make no effort to
see the child is raised with two parents under the illusion that no
child really needs a father.
EBB
E. Barry Bruyea
Don't forget, Don, that responsibility, as far as Canadian courts are
concerned, resides in the man's wallet, not in his presence as a
father.
EBB
Donald J. Dickson
siberRE...@sympatico.ca (E. Barry Bruyea) wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:27:17 GMT, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald
> J. Dickson) wrote:
> >
> >When cloning children from a single parent becomes standard practice then
> >Mr Kolding's position would be reasonable. Until that time I think that a
> >man should be at least 50% responsible for raising raising the children he
> >has fathered.
>
>
> Don't forget, Don, that responsibility, as far as Canadian courts are
> concerned, resides in the man's wallet, not in his presence as a
> father.
Under the new rules the financial capability of both parents is taken into
consideration. If sole custody is granted to one person then the other
takes the greater financial responsibility but if it is joint custody then
the financial responsibility is split. My knowledge of the subject comes
from what happened when my brother-in-law and his ex divorced. They have
joint custody and because she was making nearly the same as him he pays no
alimony and the amount he pays for child support is considerably less than
if she had been a full time housewife.
john ramsay
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:53:46 GMT, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald
> J. Dickson) wrote:
>
> >In article <3854A7BE...@mergetel.com>, jra...@mergetel.com wrote:
> >
> >> lb wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Peter Kolding wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> > >The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent.
> >> > In
> >> > >Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
> >> > choice to
> >> > >create children, and have no ability to create children. They
> >> > >therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
> >> > >responsibility is to support themselves.
> >> >
> >> > "Men do not create children"?
> >> >
> >> > Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
> >> >
> >> > lb
> >>
> >> Mr. Kolding must be a product of virgin birth.
> >>
> >> A second coming without benefit of a first -:)
> >
> >Good line John, :-))
> >
> >means of producing a child, neither does a woman.
>
> no means, independent _or otherwise_, of producing a child.
Neither do women. They can't even get artificially inseminated with
female sperm.
It takes both sexes to have children. Why does that bother you?
Bell Simpson
Donald J. Dickson
wrote:
> Get off of this chicken or egg theme and address the subject of the thread.
Well it is on topic because Mr. Kolding seems to think that being a man is
an automatic right to becoming a deadbeat dad if he so chooses. But the
subject has been changed to better reflect this branch of the thread.
Peter Kolding
wrote:
Are you congenitally obtuse? All the sperm and all the eggs in the
world will not produce a child if a female doesn't choose to produce
it. It is females who produce children, not men. Men, as you seem not
to understand, only produce sperm.
Peter Kolding
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <38578365...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
>siberRE...@sympatico.ca (E. Barry Bruyea) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:27:17 GMT, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald
>> J. Dickson) wrote:
>> >
>> >When cloning children from a single parent becomes standard practice then
>> >Mr Kolding's position would be reasonable. Until that time I think that a
>> >man should be at least 50% responsible for raising raising the children he
>> >has fathered.
>>
>>
>> Don't forget, Don, that responsibility, as far as Canadian courts are
>> concerned, resides in the man's wallet, not in his presence as a
>> father.
>
>
>Under the new rules the financial capability of both parents is taken into
>consideration. If sole custody is granted to one person then the other
>takes the greater financial responsibility but if it is joint custody then
>the financial responsibility is split. My knowledge of the subject comes
>from what happened when my brother-in-law and his ex divorced. They have
>joint custody and because she was making nearly the same as him he pays no
>alimony and the amount he pays for child support is considerably less than
>if she had been a full time housewife.
If they have joint custody, why should he pay any "child support" at
all?
Peter Kolding
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <kurd5scpg3runblvn...@4ax.com>, Peter Kolding
><pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:21:34 GMT, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald
>> J. Dickson) wrote:
>> >
>> >Well, if you are married, I can certainly see why your wife wouldn't want
>> >the world populated by anyone carrying your low level genetics. It would
>> >set the human race back a few hundred years.
>>
>> Thanks for finally admitting men do not create children, and thus have
>> no responsibilty for supporting them.
>
>It takes two to plant the seed and two to raise the child.
No it doesn't. It is entirely the female's choice whether a child is
created or not, and since 90% of custody is awarded to females, it is
obvious that 2 are NOTneeded to a raise a child.
>Fathering a
>child should also includes responsibility for raising the child.
Why? Men don't have the power to create children, nor any choice in
the matter. It is not Ben and Jerry's fault if you get fat eating ice
cream, and they are certainly not responsible for paying your
Weightwatchers fees.
>There are
>too many people running around fathering children who don't give a damn
>about the consequences.
What consequences? How can men possibly be held responsible for the
choices of females?
> I for one am tired of paying tax money into
>welfare for these assholes who believe they can walk away from a situation
>in which they willing participated because they think raising a child is
>women's work.
You mean you are sick of being responsible for something you had no
control or say over, and wish those responsible for producing these
children should pay. (Isn't that exactly what I've been saying?)
No man can produce a child, and no female can be forced to. Raising a
child is the responsibility of she who produced the child. After all,
no one else but her had a choice in the matter.
Peter Kolding
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <3857D38F...@sprint.com>, Bell Simpson <be...@sprint.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Get off of this chicken or egg theme and address the subject of the thread.
>
>Well it is on topic because Mr. Kolding seems to think that being a man is
>an automatic right to becoming a deadbeat dad if he so chooses.
How can any man "choose" to create a child? Why are you so afraid to
admit that men have no choice in the matter of the production of
children, and therefore should not be held liable for the consequences
of other people's choices?
When will you start being responsible for yourself, Dickson, and stop
talking nonsense?
me
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <fe3d5skqk6vlq1lf0...@4ax.com>, Peter Kolding
><pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Mr. Dickson probably just can't face the fact that no matter what he
>> thinks or wants, his wife will or will not have children upon her own
>> decision alone. He doesn't have anything to do with it.
>
>Well, if you are married, I can certainly see why your wife wouldn't want
>the world populated by anyone carrying your low level genetics. It would
>set the human race back a few hundred years.
Just a few hundred?
Michael
>
> In article <385652...@netcom.ca>, zol...@netcom.ca wrote:
>
> > > Donald J. Dickson wrote:
> > >
> > > required intervention by the Holy Spirit.
> >
> > You never saw Jurassic Park then.
> >
>
> Mr Kolding's position would be reasonable. Until that time I think that a
> man should be at least 50% responsible for raising raising the children he
> has fathered.
Yes, and should be allowed 50% custody unless proven to be an unfit
parent.
Michael
me
wrote:
>Thanks for finally admitting men do not create children, and thus have
>no responsibilty for supporting them.
Men create children as well as women do. Go back to school and take
biology. Or maybe you should go and see a doctor or something.
Did your parents not teach you about the birds and the bees?
Let me teach you.
Woman has the egg.
Man has the semen.
egg + semen = embryo
thus resulting in a baby.
What do you think that white/pearly stuff is that comes out of your
penis when you ejaculate? Lubricant?
You created a life along with the woman. Man has responsibility to
raise and support their offsprings.
It's assholes like you that make men look bad.
me
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <385652...@netcom.ca>, zol...@netcom.ca wrote:
>
>> > Donald J. Dickson wrote:
>> >
>> > Mr Kolding should also be reminded that just as men have no independent
>> > means of producing a child, neither does a woman. Even the "virgin birth"
>> > required intervention by the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> You never saw Jurassic Park then.
>>
>
>
>When cloning children from a single parent becomes standard practice then
>Mr Kolding's position would be reasonable. Until that time I think that a
>man should be at least 50% responsible for raising raising the children he
>has fathered.
I think he was refering to dino's changing sex so that they could
procreate.
Michael
>
> In article <kurd5scpg3runblvn...@4ax.com>, Peter Kolding
> <pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:21:34 GMT, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald
> > J. Dickson) wrote:
> > >
> > >Well, if you are married, I can certainly see why your wife wouldn't want
> > >the world populated by anyone carrying your low level genetics. It would
> > >set the human race back a few hundred years.
> >
> > no responsibilty for supporting them.
>
> child should also includes responsibility for raising the child. There are
> too many people running around fathering children who don't give a damn
> about the consequences.
But earlier in the same breath you said, "It takes two to plant the
seed and two to raise the child." It is not possible, outside of sexual
assault, to "father a child" without the cooperation of a fertile female
who isn't using birth control. Men are financially responsible,
ethically, to the exact same extent that they are acknowledged to have
"produced" the child and to have been partners in the child's coming
into existence, (i.e. to the exact same extent that they ethically are
owed the right to have custody of the child and make decisions about how
it is raised).
The idea that men are lone wolves who go around impregnating women by
sending them anonymous DNA mail is ridiculous. Women are at least 50%
responsible for childbirth, and therefore at least 50% responsible for
the child's support. To argue that women are mindless and helpless
fertile fields into which a few stray seeds happened to float in like
dandelion seeds onto a lawn is to demean women and to imply that they
are mentally and genetically unsuited to be the CEO of a steel company.
If the feminist movement has been successful at anything, it has been
in dispelling the myths of female helplessness and female incompetence.
In doing so they have destroyed the argument that men should pay the
bills for women's emotional flights.
Michael
I for one am tired of paying tax money into
> welfare for these assholes who believe they can walk away from a situation
> in which they willing participated because they think raising a child is
> women's work.
>
Donald J. Dickson
Men are financially responsible,
> ethically, to the exact same extent that they are acknowledged to have
> "produced" the child and to have been partners in the child's coming
> into existence, (i.e. to the exact same extent that they ethically are
> owed the right to have custody of the child and make decisions about how
> it is raised).
You make my point much more eloquently than I have been expressing it.
The idea that men are lone wolves who go around impregnating women by
> sending them anonymous DNA mail is ridiculous. Women are at least 50%
> responsible for childbirth, and therefore at least 50% responsible for
> the child's support.
Absolutely no argument on the shared responsibility. The 50% contribution
on the part of the woman could be in the form of devoting her time to
raising the child while the man's 50% contribution may be close to 100% of
the financial obligation. I certainly support the father's right to have a
continuing say in the raising of the child although it may be more
practical for the mother to have more of the custodial time. These things
should and can be reviewed as the child grows older. The conditions
required for dealing with a baby certainly are different than when the
child is 10 years old.
To argue that women are mindless and helpless
> fertile fields into which a few stray seeds happened to float in like
> dandelion seeds onto a lawn is to demean women and to imply that they
> are mentally and genetically unsuited to be the CEO of a steel company.
I did not mean to demean women. I happen to know of a case a few years ago
where one of these "lone wolves" managed to have 3 young women pregnant at
the same time and to the best of my knowledge did not contribute a cent to
the raising of any of the children. At least 2 of the women ended up on
welfare. Now maybe I'm just secretly jealous of this guy's ability however
my comment below expresses my opinion of him and his like.
Donald J. Dickson
<pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
>
> If they have joint custody, why should he pay any "child support" at
> all?
Because his mother usually takes care of things like purchasing clothing,
school supplies etc. The money supplements what it is costing her.
Peter Kolding
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <75nf5s4us13e34ncg...@4ax.com>, Peter Kolding
><pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
>>
>> If they have joint custody, why should he pay any "child support" at
>> all?
>
>Because his mother usually takes care of things like purchasing clothing,
>school supplies etc. The money supplements what it is costing her.
Then it seems he doesn't have custody of his child in any way. His
ex-wife has custody of him though!
E. Barry Bruyea
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <38578365...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
>siberRE...@sympatico.ca (E. Barry Bruyea) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:27:17 GMT, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald
>> J. Dickson) wrote:
>> >
>> >When cloning children from a single parent becomes standard practice then
>> >Mr Kolding's position would be reasonable. Until that time I think that a
>> >man should be at least 50% responsible for raising raising the children he
>> >has fathered.
>>
>>
>> Don't forget, Don, that responsibility, as far as Canadian courts are
>> concerned, resides in the man's wallet, not in his presence as a
>> father.
>
>
>Under the new rules the financial capability of both parents is taken into
>consideration. If sole custody is granted to one person then the other
>takes the greater financial responsibility but if it is joint custody then
>the financial responsibility is split. My knowledge of the subject comes
>from what happened when my brother-in-law and his ex divorced. They have
>joint custody and because she was making nearly the same as him he pays no
>alimony and the amount he pays for child support is considerably less than
>if she had been a full time housewife.
>
>--
>Don Dickson
That doesn't change the fact that in a straight out custody fight, the
odds are still heavily in favour of the mother.
EBB
E. Barry Bruyea
In the case of sole custody to the mother, the courst have now the
ability to give her a nice chunk of hidden alimony, because the
father's support payments are no longer based on what is required for
the child, but an amount consistant with previous lifestyle, which
gives the mother the opportunity to bleed off a good chunk of the
funds not need to raise the child.
EBB
Dave Smith
> Great news-the Ontario government has hired 100 more inspectors to check
> out welfare abusers. These people will be checking out bank accounts,
> assets, cash withdrawals as well as progress on job searches.
>
> Candace, if you suspect a welfare cheat, you know, like some loser who
> instead of looking for work stays 17 hours on irc at one time, or has been
> on the system for longer than 2 years, pick up the phone and call
> 1-800-394-STOP. Do it for the safety of the children-we don't need antoher
> generation of welfare lifers, and we certainly don't need Suzanne
> Villeneuve types on welfare for 16 years and being _socialised_ into
> leaving her young child in a locked car on a hot summer afternoon.
I have to wonder how easy it is for people to get welfare. I ran into a guy at
work today who was on his way to pick up his welfare cheque. The truck he was
driving had NY plates and the driver licence he showed me was from NY state. I
called the welfare office to advise them about it and they wanted me to call
the 1-800 number. I had to be a little more persistent and let them know that
the guy was on his way to pick up his cheque and that he was a NY resident.
They then directed me to the guys caseworker who told me his cheque was
already on hold because his land lord kicked them out for non payment of rent.
I was under the impression that you had to had to have an Ontario residence to
qualify for welfare. It never occurred to me that just anyone could move into
a hotel temporarily and collect.
Dave Smith
>
> > If they have joint custody, why should he pay any "child support" at
> > all?
>
> Because his mother usually takes care of things like purchasing clothing,
> school supplies etc. The money supplements what it is costing her.
If that is the case, why do men with high incomes have to spend so much more
on child support? Do their school supplies cost that much more? We live in
a society where men are considered to be the providers, not the care givers?.
It's one thing that we expect men to provide the income in a relationship,
but why is the man still expected to provide the income after the
relationship breaks down?
Donald J. Dickson
<pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:55:18 GMT, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald
> J. Dickson) wrote:
>
> >In article <75nf5s4us13e34ncg...@4ax.com>, Peter Kolding
> ><pkol...@cts.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If they have joint custody, why should he pay any "child support" at
> >> all?
> >
> >Because his mother usually takes care of things like purchasing clothing,
> >school supplies etc. The money supplements what it is costing her.
>
> Then it seems he doesn't have custody of his child in any way. His
> ex-wife has custody of him though!
His son splits his time equally between the 2 parents. The agreement is
that the mother will purchase most of the things like clothing, school
supplies etc. He got a major promotion a couple of years ago and his ex
tried but could not get any higher payments because her income had also
increased proportionately over the same period.
Donald J. Dickson
> "Donald J. Dickson" wrote:
>
> >
> > > If they have joint custody, why should he pay any "child support" at
> > > all?
> >
> > Because his mother usually takes care of things like purchasing clothing,
> > school supplies etc. The money supplements what it is costing her.
>
> If that is the case, why do men with high incomes have to spend so much more
> on child support? Do their school supplies cost that much more? We live in
> a society where men are considered to be the providers, not the care givers?.
> It's one thing that we expect men to provide the income in a relationship,
> but why is the man still expected to provide the income after the
> relationship breaks down?
There is now some kind of formula which is used to calculate child support
based on the incomes of both parents. It appears to take into account the
level of life style that the child would supposedly enjoyed had the two
parents stayed together. Depending on the custodial agreement and if it
is decided that one parent will be primarily responsible for purchasing
the needs of the child the money can be large or small. In this instance
he pays no alimony.
Donald J. Dickson
siberRE...@sympatico.ca (E. Barry Bruyea) wrote:
>
>
> That doesn't change the fact that in a straight out custody fight, the
> odds are still heavily in favour of the mother.
> EBB
Probably the age of the child also affects the balance. When the children
are old enough to attend school full time I think the odds are more even
than if a child is very young and needs some kind of fulltime attention.
The man is more likely to have a job which could affect his ability to be
home when the child is there unless, of course, the reason for the divorce
is that someone else has moved in to take the wife's place. Of course that
can also beused as the reason the wife is a more fit person to have
custody.
john ramsay
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:09:36 -0500, john ramsay <jra...@mergetel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:53:46 GMT, xcx...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald
> >> J. Dickson) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3854A7BE...@mergetel.com>, jra...@mergetel.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> lb wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Peter Kolding wrote in message ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >The responsibility for children lies with the custodial parent.
> >> >> > In
> >> >> > >Canada, read the female. Men do not create children, have no
> >> >> > choice to
> >> >> > >create children, and have no ability to create children. They
> >> >> > >therefore have no responsibility to support them. There only
> >> >> > >responsibility is to support themselves.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Men do not create children"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Pray tell, Mr. Kolding how did you come upon the earth?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > lb
> >> >>
> >> >> Mr. Kolding must be a product of virgin birth.
> >> >>
> >> >> A second coming without benefit of a first -:)
> >> >
> >> >Good line John, :-))
> >> >
> >> >means of producing a child, neither does a woman.
> >>
> >> no means, independent _or otherwise_, of producing a child.
> >
> >Neither do women. They can't even get artificially inseminated with
> >female sperm.
> > It takes both sexes to have children. Why does that bother you?
>
> Are you congenitally obtuse? All the sperm and all the eggs in the
> world will not produce a child if a female doesn't choose to produce
> it. It is females who produce children, not men. Men, as you seem not
> to understand, only produce sperm.
Yes, and they can keep that sperm within a condom which gives a man as
much control over whether a child is produced as a woman.
Peter Kolding
wrote:
Look, idiot: Whether a man wears a condom or not, he is not going to
produce a child.
lb
john ramsay wrote in message <38589BAD...@mergetel.com>...
>Peter Kolding wrote:
>> Are you congenitally obtuse? All the sperm and all the eggs in the
>> world will not produce a child if a female doesn't choose to produce
>> it. It is females who produce children, not men. Men, as you seem not
>> to understand, only produce sperm.
>
>Yes, and they can keep that sperm within a condom which gives a man as
>much control over whether a child is produced as a woman.
For the child's sake, one would hope that Mr. Kolding has taken
stronger precautions than a condom to prevent his sperm from
allowing a woman the choice to produce a child.
lb
>The Vatican, ...warned of potential dangers from
the Internet in the decline in public morals.<
Chanie D. Cunningham
Although we all enjoy the hilarious commentary that is monty python, the
argument was never whether or not men could "have babies", but was more
whether or not men share responsibility (or have any at all) in the
creation of and consequent caring (physical or financial) for those
babies. I think we all agree that a man cannot physically give birth!
But MOST of us agree that men have as much choice and responsibility in
the creation of and caring for a child as do women.
Regards,
Chanie D. Cunningham
Carleton Univeristy
Ottawa, Ontario
Chanie D. Cunningham
SAYING?
Never in my life have I encountered an individual so horribly convinced
of his own superiority, and his percieved immunity from responsibility
for something so obviously his own fault.
In response to your statement:
"It is entirely the female's choice whether a child is created or not"
You must be arguing a philosophical standpoint, as it cannot possibly be
biological or social. You are entitled to your selfish and sexist
opinions, but your publicly announcing them is as damning to your sex as
Hitler was to the Germans. The fact that you believe you can deny
responsibility for your actions based solely on the fact that you are
male, and the embryo that YOU helped create to a level EQUAL to your
partner, is being housed in your partner's body and not yours, is both
piggish and disgusting. Never mind the gratitude most fathers feel
toward the female sex for actually going through childbirth. Try forcing
a bowling ball through your urethra, tearing of flesh included, and
maybe you'll get the idea. "Creation" of a child begins at conception,
which is not possible without EQUAL contribution from BOTH sexes. The
point that it is the woman who delivers the child is moot to your
argument. The child was created by YOU and your partner long before
delivery. Your being burned is the only basis I can think of for your
childish behaviour. IF custody of your child was awarded your wife, it
is with no uncertainty that I say Congrats to the Judge. Anyone who
would pass down such beliefs to a child should be shot. It's your child,
and your responsibility, and you must continue to provide for it's
physical well being, if you can't do so cognitively or emotionally.
As to the financial support discussion, I believe that the parent not
responsible (and I include both males and females in this analogy) for
the actual raising of the child (including buying clothes, food,
supplies, washing dishes, cleaning afer the child, ooking for the child,
and teaching them about people, ethics and life in general) must
contribute in some way to the raising of their child. If the courts
have decided that it is in the CHILD'S best interest to stay with the
father, the mother should provide the same financial support as she
would if the two were still married, and this applies as well to the
father if the mother is awarded custody. Tell me if its fair that the
father be dining on caviar in a penthouse apartment with his new 18yr
old wife, while his child dines on Kraft Dinner and Ketchup in Ontario
Housing.
The reason we don't have alimony in Canada is because we have progressed
far beyond the belief that the husband should support the wife. In our
progress, we have also determined that it is not the sole responsibility
of the mother to care for the child. Women and Men are EQUAL in our
society, and that's the way it should be. This also means that the
caring of a child which the parents BOTH produced, remains the EQUAL
responsibilty of BOTH parents, ethically, morally, and UNDER THE LAW.
Sole custody should only be awarded, in my opinion, if one of the
parents is determined to be unfit. Custody is often awarded to the
mother because of a myriad of possible reasons, including the
mother-child BIOLOGICAL bond which is not as strong in the father (and
this is medical fact, not opinion), the mother's time availability for
the child, the level of sacrifice endured by the mother for the child,
the father's unavailability or being unfit, and the child's own wishes
(actual or implied). Note that there are no misconceptions here about
women's propensity for poor behaviour. That's why the statute goes both
ways.
Oh yes, and on the note about the male having no choice, I beseech of
you, grow up. With the single exception of a woman's right to an
abortion in Canada, men have as much choice in the creation of a child
as momen do. For many abortion is not an option, making the choice and
responsibility 50/50 EQUAL between both partners. Have you ever heard
of a condom? Oh, I understand now, women are scheming little creatures
who trick you males into having sex in order to procreate. We poke
holes in your condoms while you're not looking, don't we? WE're the
ones who slip rape drugs into YOUR drinks in order to make you more
compliant. We stop taking our birth control pills and lie to you about
it, don't we? I guess that also means that every woman who has ever had
a child actually wanted to? Maybe you should attend a grade seven sex
ed course. You would probably learn something.
I have nothing against men, in fact, I have a great deal of respect for
most of the men (and women) I associate with, both on a personal and
professional level. It's people like you, sir, that give destructive
hard-core feminists and male-bashers ammunition. And indeed the
ammunition you are providing is of atomic proportions.
I've devoted my life to the study of human behaviour and cognition. I
dare say that you would be a most challenging experiment subject.
Regards,
Chanie D. Cunningham
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
Michael T. Richter
news:3859389C...@home.com...
> For heaven's sake! IS THIS MAN NOT LISTENING TO WHAT ANYONE HERE
> IS SAYING?
For Heaven's sake! ARE YOU GOING TO BE REPOSTING THIS MESSAGE OVER AND OVER
AND OVER UNTIL DOOMSDAY?
While I find myself agreeing with your sentiments, I find that reading them
repeatedly doesn't increase my agreement.
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Chanie D. Cunningham
than once.
Allow me to explain: I saw that the initial one only represented my
first name, so I deleted it, and re-posted. Then the second I found was
not following the message I intended, so I deleted and re-posted,
thinking that the flow of messages would not make as much sense in its
new position.
I thought that if I deleted the message, the message would indeed be
deleted.
I suppose this just shows you how often I actually post to the
newsgroups.
There was certainly no need to be rude, Michael :)
Thank you for informing me of the problem. I now know that deleting a
message doesn't actually delete it from the newsgroup on other people's
computers.
Peter Kolding
>
>john ramsay wrote in message <38589BAD...@mergetel.com>...
>>Peter Kolding wrote:
>
>>> Are you congenitally obtuse? All the sperm and all the eggs in the
>>> world will not produce a child if a female doesn't choose to produce
>>> it. It is females who produce children, not men. Men, as you seem not
>>> to understand, only produce sperm.
>>
>>Yes, and they can keep that sperm within a condom which gives a man as
>>much control over whether a child is produced as a woman.
>
>
>For the child's sake, one would hope that Mr. Kolding has taken
>stronger precautions than a condom to prevent his sperm from
>allowing a woman the choice to produce a child.
>
>
You've really got to come to grips with your mind-destroying
fantasies. It is women who create children, not men. They can use any
sperm they want -- their choice, their responsibilty.
Chanie D. Cunningham
It's nice to encounter the occasional intelligent argument on these
newsgroups.
I agree that our legal system is far from perfect, and in its
imperfection, has very unfortunately overlooked the rights of the
non-custodial parent (and, incidentally, the child). I am sorry for the
shoddy treatment that responsible and caring non-custodial parents have
thus far recieved.
As I stated in my other posting, the sainted custodial parent is far
from perfect. I have encountered people in the exact predicament you
described.
My sympathy goes out to those of you who have the need, capacity, and
desire to be an active part of your children's lives, but who are being
denied the opportunity due to the labyrinth that is our legal system, or
due to the abuse by vindictive custodial parents. It is these people,
infecting their children against a beloved parent out of pure malice,
who should be declared unfit.
Its the "dead-beat" non-paying and non-supportive parents who are
spoiling honest and good people's opportunities to be good parents. And
those custodial parents who are abusing the non-custodial parent's legal
and moral right to (basically) be a good parent, are also abusing the
child. There are plenty of horrible "fathers" and "mothers" out there,
who are poisoning our society with bitterness, emanating from
themselves, and consequently from all who they touch.
Although I wish otherwise, I have no answer for you, sir. And I don't
think anyone else does either. Its just one more unfortunate glitch we
have to work out of our system.
Regards,
Chanie D. Cunningham
Suffice it to say, though, that a good and responsible father (or
mother, to be PC) shouldn't have to pay lawyers and jump through legal
hoops to see his (her) child. Many people would (and do) give up too
soon out of poverty or sheer frustration.
Regards and best wishes,
Michael T. Richter
news:7ugi5ssrvaqu0ol4f...@4ax.com...
> You've really got to come to grips with your mind-destroying
> fantasies. It is women who create children, not men. They can use
> any sperm they want -- their choice, their responsibilty.
Why is anybody bothering to respond to this gentleman^Wperson^Windividual?
It is clear to anybody with a spare brain cell that Kolding is a troll, and
a not particularly good one. (A good troll isn't so obvious about things.)
If you don't think this man is a troll, go digging through Deja.com and read
for yourself. Look especially in alt.fan.howard.stern where he "reveals"
things like that Stern is confirmed gay, that Stern's many-year partner in
the radio business is quitting, that Stern is dead from a drug overdose,
etc. The man is persistent in his attempts to get a rise out of people, and
apparently has sufficient skill to catch the extremely gullible.
me
wrote:
>You've really got to come to grips with your mind-destroying
>fantasies. It is women who create children, not men. They can use any
>sperm they want -- their choice, their responsibilty.
Kolding... you sir, are an idiot. Men can use any fetus that they
want. Your analogies are double standared at best. You need both to
create a child.
Your semantics of who's body the child comes out of is irrelavent.
The child would not be coming ouf of the woman's body, if the MAN'S
sperm did not fertilize the fetus.
Get with reality, or just shut the fuck up.
Peter Kolding
>On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:01:24 -0800, Peter Kolding <pkol...@cts.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>You've really got to come to grips with your mind-destroying
>>fantasies. It is women who create children, not men. They can use any
>>sperm they want -- their choice, their responsibilty.
>
>
>Kolding... you sir, are an idiot. Men can use any fetus that they
>want. Your analogies are double standared at best. You need both to
>create a child.
Try to get it in your addled brain that men cannot create a child.
Period. You have either been sold a pleasant myth that helps you make
you more secure in your masculinity, or you have a fundamental
misunderstanding about the difference between male and female biology.
>
>Your semantics of who's body the child comes out of is irrelavent.
>The child would not be coming ouf of the woman's body, if the MAN'S
>sperm did not fertilize the fetus.
>
Sperm does not fertilize the "fetus". And a child will only come out
of a women's body if she decides she wants to create a child, and then
gives birth to it. Nitwit.
Peter Kolding
<cha...@home.com> wrote:
>I'm so glad you and your child have access to each other now.
>Suffice it to say, though, that a good and responsible father (or
>mother, to be PC) shouldn't have to pay lawyers and jump through legal
>hoops to see his (her) child. Many people would (and do) give up too
>soon out of poverty or sheer frustration.
>
The whole problem can be solved quite easily by making the females who
give birth to children responsible for raising them. In other words,
no more alimony, child support, maintenance etc., for anyone, at any
time.
I am prepared to guarantee that if females were advised that they, and
they alone, were to be held responsible for the children they produce,
there would be a revolutionary change in their breeding habits almost
overnight.
Bell Simpson
Peter Kolding wrote:>
>
> Sperm does not fertilize the "fetus". And a child will only come out
> of a women's body if she decides she wants to create a child, and then
> gives birth to it. Nitwit.
That's how I had my three kids. I wished real hard and made up my mind that I
wanted to create a child. I tried, hard as you can imagine, and poof, out it
popped then it looked at me and said "thanks mom I needed that!" ROTFLMAO
Donald J. Dickson
<jam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> I paid quite a bit of money to get access to my son, and my idea is
> that if you gave people like me even 5 cents on the dollar, we'd drag
> back every non-payor by the balls. I don't even call men (and lets
> face it, most people who run out on families are men) who run away
> from their responsibilities "fathers". The term means too much to me.
My sentiments exactly. It really makes me wonder about the Ontario gov'ts
commitment to families when they have admitted that their attempt to
"privatize" collections from parents who are behind in their payments
resulted in recovery of 1% of the outstanding amounts. I believe the total
amount was something like $400 million and they collected about $4
million. At the same time they are crowing about preventing $35 million of
welfare abuse. If it's not their money they don't care.
It also irks me that conscientious parents are forced to go through the
gov't system when they could send the cheque direct and save both time and
money.
Michael
>
> For heaven's sake! IS THIS MAN NOT LISTENING TO WHAT ANYONE HERE IS
> SAYING?
What man? You forgot to quote what you were replying to.
Michael
P.S. Are you related to Lon?
Michael
Not that you are always illogical, but generally there is illogic on
both sides in these emotional issues.
Donald J. Dickson wrote:
>
> In article <385782...@netcom.ca>, zol...@netcom.ca wrote:
>
> Men are financially responsible,
> > ethically, to the exact same extent that they are acknowledged to have
> > "produced" the child and to have been partners in the child's coming
> > into existence, (i.e. to the exact same extent that they ethically are
> > owed the right to have custody of the child and make decisions about how
> > it is raised).
>
> You make my point much more eloquently than I have been expressing it.
Your point is that the father's parental rights and responsibilities
are equal to the mothers. We agree on the basics then.
> The idea that men are lone wolves who go around impregnating women by
> > sending them anonymous DNA mail is ridiculous. Women are at least 50%
> > responsible for childbirth, and therefore at least 50% responsible for
> > the child's support.
>
> Absolutely no argument on the shared responsibility. The 50% contribution
> on the part of the woman could be in the form of devoting her time to
> raising the child while the man's 50% contribution may be close to 100% of
> the financial obligation.
That is non sequitur illogical silliness. Why shouldn't the father have
custody and the mother pay 100% of the financial obligation? Is it
because you think that women are more suited to being in the kitchen
making baby food? Talking in a soothing, sweet childlike voice to the
babies? Fluffing the pillows in the nursery? Not exactly what a steel
company is looking for in their headhunt for a dynamic CEO.
>I certainly support the father's right to have a
> continuing say in the raising of the child although it may be more
> practical for the mother to have more of the custodial time.
"More practical"? Why?
>These things
> should and can be reviewed as the child grows older. The conditions
> required for dealing with a baby certainly are different than when the
> child is 10 years old.
>
> To argue that women are mindless and helpless
> > fertile fields into which a few stray seeds happened to float in like
> > dandelion seeds onto a lawn is to demean women and to imply that they
> > are mentally and genetically unsuited to be the CEO of a steel company.
>
> I did not mean to demean women.
You sound like the steamroller driver who says he didn't mean to
flatten the parked Toyota. You did demean women, whether you meant it or
not. The damage is done, regardless of your intentions.
>I happen to know of a case a few years ago
> where one of these "lone wolves" managed to have 3 young women pregnant at
> the same time
You mean that three young women volunteered to sleep with this "lone
wolf" without using contraception? Why did they volunteer to do this?
And why do you portray them as victims? Was not the "lone wolf" also a
victim in being seduced by these sexy women who weren't using birth
control?
>and to the best of my knowledge did not contribute a cent to
> the raising of any of the children.
How do you know that the women didn't lie to him, and tell him they
were on the pill? You don't. (I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but
so are you). I agree with you that the "lone wolf", as irresponsible
loser, should be 50% involved in parenting these children, in terms of
custody and financial support.
>At least 2 of the women ended up on
> welfare.
"Ended up"? They "ended up" in bed with a "lone wolf," and "ended up"
not using contraception, and "ended up" pregnant (surprise surprise),
and finally "ended up" on welfare. Maybe they will "end up" being CEO's
for a major steel company. If they don't, people like you will "end up"
screaming "Discrimination!"
>Now maybe I'm just secretly jealous of this guy's ability
Impregnation requires no special talent. Nature is very generous when
it comes to reproduction.
> however my comment below expresses my opinion of him and his like.
Did you comment on his female co-conspirators' willing participation in
irresponsibly bringing children into a life of poverty?
> > > I for one am tired of paying tax money into
> > > welfare for these assholes who believe they can walk away from a situation
> > > in which they willing participated because they think raising a child is
> > > women's work.
If the women you speak of were married to the guy, and became pregnant
by mutual decision within a situation of a promised commitment, then I
agree with you. But if they just seduced some drunk they picked up at a
bar, without using contraception, then the drunk is the victim. You
can't get somebody juiced up, seduce them into signing a contract of
enslavement, then hold them to that contract the next morning.
Did these contraceptive-eschewing women cry out loudly to this drunk,
as they were about to have sex with him, "OH JOY! I AM SO HAPPY THAT YOU
WANT TO MAKE ME PREGNANT! I AM SO LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING YOUR BABY! I
AM SO GLAD THAT YOU HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO BE THE FATHER OF MY CHILD! NINE
MONTHS FROM NOW OUR BABY WILL BE BORN, AND NOT LONG AFTER WE WILL STAND
TOGETHER ARM IN ARM AS HE/SHE RUNS UP TO YOU AND CALLS YOU 'DADDY'. AND
WE WILL SPEND OUR LIVES TOGETHER WATCHING THAT CHILD GROW INTO AN ADULT!
WON'T THAT BE A WONDERFUL WAY FOR YOU TO SHARE YOUR LIFE WITH ME?"
Somehow I doubt that those women said anything of the sort as a lead-up
to getting pregnant.
So it is likely, in the case of the births you mentioned, that both
parents were dishonest and stupid, and both should be held equally
responsible for their stupidity, but not one parent more than the other.
But what do these lowlifes have to do with people here? There are lots
of women with the ability to be fantastic CEO's of steel companies, or
topnotch in any field, and there are many men who consider high
achievement to be attractive in a woman. There is no way in a million
years that such a woman would inadvertently get pregnant.
There is too much of a media/usenet emphasis on lowlife women as
victims, rather than on high-achieving women as leaders. That is the
failure of feminism, i.e. defining "women" as victims/losers. No wonder
most people ignore it.
Michael
Erik Schild
Chanie D. Cunningham wrote:
> Mr. Kolding:
>
> Will you please go away
>
> We do not want to hear any more repetition of your opinion.
[snip]
You should filter Kolding from your newsreader.
There is no 'we' on usenet.
E.Schild
esc...@uniserve.com
Peter Kolding
<cha...@home.com> wrote:
>Mr. Kolding:
>
>Will you please go away
No.
>
>We do not want to hear any more repetition of your opinion.
Tough.
>You've made your point, over many times, now leave.
No.
>You've enraged,
>annoyed, insulted or frustrated enough people by now, haven't you?
Who have I enraged, annoyed or insulted? I've simply propounded
arguments which no one has been able to refute. The real problem is
not with me, nor my opinions, but with the enormous weight of
prejudice that you and others would be obliged to discard before being
able to come to terms with the truth. You fear the truth, and resent
anyone who plainly states it. You instinctively understand that you
cannot possibly deal with a world where women are responsible for
producing children, and where men are not. Your whole immoral house of
cards called "shared" responsibilty would collapse, leaving the
unthinkable possibility that men and women may have to deal with life
as autonomous individuals, rather than parasitic leeches.
>It's obvious that no-one is going to agree with you, now or ever.
>Please stop wasting everyone's time.
>
Spend your time as you wish. I'll spend mine as I wish. That you waste
yours is no business of mine.
Peter Kolding
wrote:
I can certainly believe this, considering you believe sperm fertilizes
the fetus. Others, with high school biology to their credit, might
wonder why a fetus needs to be fertilized, but doubtless you also have
an amusing anecdote to explain this. Tell me instead, oh wise woman of
the frozen frontal lobe, how you prevented yourself having more than 3
children? Could it be that you choose not to have any more? But
forgive me --- that, of course, is impossible. For if you choose not
to have any more than three children, you must have obviously chosen
to have only three in the first place. Please try to carefully note
the complete absence of any man's choice in this matter, as these
conundrums whirl around in the vast wasteland that inhabits your
skull.
Chanie D. Cunningham
Will you please go away
We do not want to hear any more repetition of your opinion.
You've made your point, over many times, now leave. You've enraged,
annoyed, insulted or frustrated enough people by now, haven't you?
It's obvious that no-one is going to agree with you, now or ever.
Please stop wasting everyone's time.
I don't know exactly what a "troll" is, but what you are doing certainly
seems to fit the bill. Take your views to a philosophy group, where
they may be appreciated on a theoretical basis.
Donald J. Dickson
> Donald J. Dickson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Absolutely no argument on the shared responsibility. The 50% contribution
> > on the part of the woman could be in the form of devoting her time to
> > raising the child while the man's 50% contribution may be close to 100% of
> > the financial obligation.
>
> That is non sequitur illogical silliness. Why shouldn't the
father have
> custody and the mother pay 100% of the financial obligation? Is it
> because you think that women are more suited to being in the kitchen
> making baby food? Talking in a soothing, sweet childlike voice to the
> babies? Fluffing the pillows in the nursery? Not exactly what a steel
> company is looking for in their headhunt for a dynamic CEO.
>
I was just using an example of what the 50-50 responsibility could be. I
have also heard of cases where the father took on the full time commitment
to looking after the children and the woman kept her job and paid support.
> So it is likely, in the case of the births you mentioned, that both
> parents were dishonest and stupid, and both should be held equally
> responsible for their stupidity, but not one parent more than the other.
>
Exactly. My point was that the mother ended up with 100% responsibility
but because she didn't have the financial resources then I, as a taxpayer,
started paying for the father's share of the responsinbility when she
started getting welfare to raise the child. My share of the cost in the
taxes was minimal but the fact that I should have had to pay at all when
there was a perfectly healthy employed father, who could have been paying,
is the part that irks me.
Donald J. Dickson
into town this morning:
Dr. Laura, who does a live radio consultation about relationships, had a
woman phone in about what to do. She was a divorced mother with two
children. She has met this charming man who she knows has fathered 3
children out of wedlock for which he does not pay support. She asks how
she should deal with the fact that she enjoys this man's companionship(she
absolutely denies having sex with him to this point). Dr Laura asks her
if she can name ONE positive factor to be a reason to continue dating him.
The woman after a great deal of hesitation finally says that the only
thing she can name is that he is someone she can talk to. Dr. Laura's
final comment is " it's obvious from this man's track record that if you
don't want to end up heart broken and pregnant, start looking elsewhere".
I guess it's a sad commentary on how lonely some people are and why they
get themselves into bad relationships.
Second item was on the CBC morning show. It was a song called the
"Christmas Goose". The song tells about a man who is hosting a Christmas
party for his friends at a restaurant. It happens that the same young
woman who served the group on the previous Christmas is their waitress
again. When the time comes for the roast goose to be served the waitress
brings out a baby in a basket and presents it to the host who asks what is
going on. The waitress replies "Last year you gave me a $10 tip. I'm now
giving back the change"
Chanie D. Cunningham
That you waste yours is no business of mine."
Agreed. It is no business of yours and I never sought to make it so. The
request was not solely on my behalf. I had never posted my opinion to a
newsgroup before this, and through this experience I have discovered
that it is a horrible waste of my time and resources, and an insult to
my intelligence and experience. I will save my opinions for much more
reputable forms of publication.
Initially I had thought the newsgroups to be an outlet for higher
intellectual discourse, but it is obvious now that they have become a
haven for verbal abuse and overall immature behaviour - name calling,
trouble instigation and such childishness. It is sad to me that a
person be allowed to spread such hate-filled sexism on a group that is
not related to sex issues in any way, and be supported under the belief
that "he has a right to his opinion". Free speech does not condone
sexist proclamations.
Oh, and I apologize for the generalization of using the word "we" in
another of my postings, but I have read the entire thread, and my
statements fit the sentiments of the vast majority of people who have
posted on the topic. Read the thread and you will see this. I apologize
to those few of you who actually wanted to hear from Mr. Kolding, for
entertainment's sake, or for whatever reasons you may have. My intention
was to benefit the newsgroup, not to insult anyone.
With this I will conclude my postings to this newsgroup, and my
involvement overall. Post a reply if you wish to call me a name, or if
you wish to defend yourself against some imaginary attack, but know that
it will not be read by me. Since those who are intentionally spoiling
the nature of the newsgroups will not take their leave, I will take
mine.
Good Bye,