Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter, June 2012 c

Expand Messages
  • Bob Allen
    For thousands of years civilized societies and most primitive tribes have had a standard form agreement whereby a man agreed to support the woman s children. 
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      For thousands of years civilized societies and most primitive tribes have had a standard form agreement whereby a man agreed to support the woman's children.  It was once called "marriage."  When a man took a "wife" she agreed to bear his children, and only his children.  In exchange he agreed to support and protect her and his children.   A man had NO moral or legal obligation to support bastards that females created by engaging in flagrant fucking without marriage.  Without marriage he had no legal or moral agreement by a man to support whoever's child she produced.
       
      Feminism has worked hard to destroy marriage, and still force men to pay for her bastards.  That is immoral and wrong.  It has destroyed our whole society and harmed uncounted millions of bastard children.  Neither should the state rob men to support her bastards.  That too promotes single mothers and more bastards. 
       
      Blessings
      Bob
       
      Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/


      [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]

      From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
      To: aum@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:09 PM
      Subject: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter, June 2012 c

       
      --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Don Mathis <fourteenpercenter@...> wrote:

      > Dear Ms Rivers,
      > The Divorce Industry routinely 'awards' children of divorce to mothers as if gender is a determination of parenting skills. And men are routinely ordered to pay Child Support regardless if both parents earn an equitable income. These assumptions are just plain wrong!
      > The various mothers of Desmond Hatchett's children knew what they were getting into when they had unprotected sex with him. Why don't you blast the women?
      > And if a judge ordered Mr. Hatchett to have custody, he would not have time to impregnate any more kids. Plus, he would be a rich man -- imagine getting Child Support for 30 children!
      > So before you 'kick the man' next time, consider the rules of the dance -- it takes two to tango!

      This really seems to miss the point here. Mr. Hatchett most likely has no interest in caring for his children himself else he would not continue this behavior. That fact, however, is only because the women agree to sex with him under that condition, and of course they are to blame. While it may be objectionable that the taxpayers essentially support his children, it is not possible for him to do so and the women that sleep with him have to know this.

      Andrew Usher



    • Don Mathis
      I know many men who do have an interest in caring for their children - but they are prevented from doing so by uncaring judges and vindictive ex-wives. I have
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I know many men who do have an interest in caring for their children - but they are prevented from doing so by uncaring judges and vindictive ex-wives.
        I have read no article that disparages Mr. Hatchett's parenting skills.
         
        Don, the 14%er

        From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
        To: aum@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:09 PM
        Subject: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter, June 2012 c

         
        --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Don Mathis <fourteenpercenter@...> wrote:

        > Dear Ms Rivers,
        > The Divorce Industry routinely 'awards' children of divorce to mothers as if gender is a determination of parenting skills. And men are routinely ordered to pay Child Support regardless if both parents earn an equitable income. These assumptions are just plain wrong!
        > The various mothers of Desmond Hatchett's children knew what they were getting into when they had unprotected sex with him. Why don't you blast the women?
        > And if a judge ordered Mr. Hatchett to have custody, he would not have time to impregnate any more kids. Plus, he would be a rich man -- imagine getting Child Support for 30 children!
        > So before you 'kick the man' next time, consider the rules of the dance -- it takes two to tango!

        This really seems to miss the point here. Mr. Hatchett most likely has no interest in caring for his children himself else he would not continue this behavior. That fact, however, is only because the women agree to sex with him under that condition, and of course they are to blame. While it may be objectionable that the taxpayers essentially support his children, it is not possible for him to do so and the women that sleep with him have to know this.

        Andrew Usher



      • k_over_hbarc
        ... I know there are but that s not the issue here. ... Nor have I read any article praising them, or indeed saying anything at all directly about them; we can
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Don Mathis <fourteenpercenter@...> wrote:
          >
          > I know many men who do have an interest in caring for their children - but they are prevented from doing so by uncaring judges and vindictive ex-wives.

          I know there are but that's not the issue here.

          > I have read no article that disparages Mr. Hatchett's parenting skills.

          Nor have I read any article praising them, or indeed saying anything at all directly about them; we can only infer from the known facts, and those indicate that he is not an involved father. That doesn't make him evil, but it does mean he can't really be used as an example of an oppressed father - except in money, of course.

          Andrew Usher
        • Don Mathis
          What are the known facts that indicate that he is not an involved father? ________________________________ From: k_over_hbarc To:
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            What are "the known facts" that "indicate that he is not an involved father?"

            From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
            To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 12:32 AM
            Subject: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter, June 2012 c

             
            --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Don Mathis <fourteenpercenter@...> wrote:
            >
            > I know many men who do have an interest in caring for their children - but they are prevented from doing so by uncaring judges and vindictive ex-wives.

            I know there are but that's not the issue here.

            > I have read no article that disparages Mr. Hatchett's parenting skills.

            Nor have I read any article praising them, or indeed saying anything at all directly about them; we can only infer from the known facts, and those indicate that he is not an involved father. That doesn't make him evil, but it does mean he can't really be used as an example of an oppressed father - except in money, of course.

            Andrew Usher



          • Spence
            Yea, I agree with all that. Best Regards Spence ... From: Bob Allen Date: 01 June 2012 13:02 To: aum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter,
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 5, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Yea, I agree with all that.

              Best Regards

              Spence
              -----------------------

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Bob Allen
              Date: 01 June 2012 13:02
              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter, June 2012 c




              For thousands of years civilized societies and most primitive tribes have
              had a standard form agreement whereby a man agreed to support the woman's
              children. It was once called "marriage." When a man took a "wife" she
              agreed to bear his children, and only his children. In exchange he agreed
              to support and protect her and his children. A man had NO moral or legal
              obligation to support bastards that females created by engaging in flagrant
              fucking without marriage. Without marriage he had no legal or moral
              agreement by a man to support whoever's child she produced.

              Feminism has worked hard to destroy marriage, and still force men to pay for
              her bastards. That is immoral and wrong. It has destroyed our whole
              society and harmed uncounted millions of bastard children. Neither should
              the state rob men to support her bastards. That too promotes single mothers
              and more bastards.

              Blessings
              Bob


              Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/


              [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should
              not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection,
              sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts.
              All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment
              of the US Constitution.]




              From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:09 PM
              Subject: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter, June 2012 c




              --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, Don Mathis <fourteenpercenter@...>
              wrote:

              > Dear Ms Rivers,
              > The Divorce Industry routinely 'awards' children of divorce to mothers as
              > if gender is a determination of parenting skills. And men are routinely
              > ordered to pay Child Support regardless if both parents earn an equitable
              > income. These assumptions are just plain wrong!
              > The various mothers of Desmond Hatchett's children knew what they were
              > getting into when they had unprotected sex with him. Why don't you blast
              > the women?
              > And if a judge ordered Mr. Hatchett to have custody, he would not have
              > time to impregnate any more kids. Plus, he would be a rich man -- imagine
              > getting Child Support for 30 children!
              > So before you 'kick the man' next time, consider the rules of the dance --
              > it takes two to tango!

              This really seems to miss the point here. Mr. Hatchett most likely has no
              interest in caring for his children himself else he would not continue this
              behavior. That fact, however, is only because the women agree to sex with
              him under that condition, and of course they are to blame. While it may be
              objectionable that the taxpayers essentially support his children, it is not
              possible for him to do so and the women that sleep with him have to know
              this.

              Andrew Usher
            • k_over_hbarc
              ... And so do I. But it is clear that marriage no longer works that purpose, and so we should no longer defend it. It only now reminds the man of his legal
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 5, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...> wrote:
                >
                > Yea, I agree with all that.

                And so do I. But it is clear that marriage no longer works that purpose, and so we should no longer defend it. It only now reminds the man of his legal servitude, and I should add as it is timely now that 'gay marriage' makes it ever more of a joke as that can have NOTHING to do with the original purpose.

                Andrew Usher

                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Bob Allen
                > Date: 01 June 2012 13:02
                > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter, June 2012 c
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > For thousands of years civilized societies and most primitive tribes have
                > had a standard form agreement whereby a man agreed to support the woman's
                > children. It was once called "marriage." When a man took a "wife" she
                > agreed to bear his children, and only his children. In exchange he agreed
                > to support and protect her and his children. A man had NO moral or legal
                > obligation to support bastards that females created by engaging in flagrant
                > fucking without marriage. Without marriage he had no legal or moral
                > agreement by a man to support whoever's child she produced.
                >
                > Feminism has worked hard to destroy marriage, and still force men to pay for
                > her bastards. That is immoral and wrong. It has destroyed our whole
                > society and harmed uncounted millions of bastard children. Neither should
                > the state rob men to support her bastards. That too promotes single mothers
                > and more bastards.
                >
                > Blessings
                > Bob
              • Bob Allen
                All those ways that marriage is under attack are all the  more reason that MEN need to defend and support real traditional marriage.   We should do it for
                Message 7 of 9 , Jun 6, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  All those ways that marriage is under attack are all the  more reason that MEN need to defend and support real traditional marriage.   We should do it for our children and our families.   The fact that well organized feminists and faggots are working hard to destroy marriage and families is a reason to fight for marriage and familes, not a reason to surrender.
                   
                  Blessings
                  Bob
                   
                   
                  Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/


                  [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]

                  From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
                  To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 10:28 PM
                  Subject: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter, June 2012 c

                   
                  --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately2@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Yea, I agree with all that.

                  And so do I. But it is clear that marriage no longer works that purpose, and so we should no longer defend it. It only now reminds the man of his legal servitude, and I should add as it is timely now that 'gay marriage' makes it ever more of a joke as that can have NOTHING to do with the original purpose.

                  Andrew Usher

                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Bob Allen
                  > Date: 01 June 2012 13:02
                  > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Fourteen Percenter, June 2012 c
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > For thousands of years civilized societies and most primitive tribes have
                  > had a standard form agreement whereby a man agreed to support the woman's
                  > children. It was once called "marriage." When a man took a "wife" she
                  > agreed to bear his children, and only his children. In exchange he agreed
                  > to support and protect her and his children. A man had NO moral or legal
                  > obligation to support bastards that females created by engaging in flagrant
                  > fucking without marriage. Without marriage he had no legal or moral
                  > agreement by a man to support whoever's child she produced.
                  >
                  > Feminism has worked hard to destroy marriage, and still force men to pay for
                  > her bastards. That is immoral and wrong. It has destroyed our whole
                  > society and harmed uncounted millions of bastard children. Neither should
                  > the state rob men to support her bastards. That too promotes single mothers
                  > and more bastards.
                  >
                  > Blessings
                  > Bob



                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.