the TRUTH about the creator of the FAKE anonymummies site

Some of you may have seen (if you follow my site and are aware of my sisters in arms), that there is an impostor in our midst. No I am not speaking of any of the wonderful men and women who spread the TRUTH about family court and the treatment abused women and children receive at the hands of those in power (and those not in power). No, gentle readers, I am speaking of a certain FATHER'S RIGHTS blogger who has decided imitation is NOT the best form of flattery. He has in fact taken an awesome organization who helps protective moms and the abused children and sullied their name. That "OTHER" blog site (not Blogger) has decided to ignore this blatant copyright infringement and allow this FATHER'S RIGHTS blogger to continue to spread his hate and misogyny. Not only does he do this on his own "Parental Father's Rights blog, but now he is attacking decent hard working WOMEN with his hate.

Well Petunia made a promise and I follow through on my promises. I did my research and BAM, WHOP, POP, SOCKEM (just like batman) I hit the JACKPOT!!!!

Petunia!!!!!!! Have you gone off your rocker? No, I say, the light is just so much clearer now that I have the actual court docket on front of my eyes.

First let me same damn!!!!! MKG you are like a dog with a damn good bone. You REALLY do NOT want to let go of this do you? Is 10 years not long enough to be terrorizing your ex-wife in court?

Now that I have your interest piqued, lets move on with the good stuff. How about Restraining orders? Oh yeah this case is full of them. Now who asked for what is unclear, but we know how it actually works right? One must wonder how many belong to ex-wife, and how many are MKG and his ANGER at work? Lets see total RO mentions to date number: more than 10 in 10 years. His ex-wife has had to ask that the TRO be reinstated at least 3 times.

Now contempt charges? No mention of the petitioning party regarding these contempt charges but there are at least 3 separate charges.

Child support? Oh that is mentioned - EVERY OTHER LINE!!!!!

So we see where MKG's heart lies.....

The children apparently have their own attorney, and it appears from knowledge gleaned from elsewhere (other woman-hate websites and from MKG's own website) that these children do NOT want to have any contact with MKG, whatsoever. MKG will you come forward about that or will you keep hiding behind your fake and pathetic woman-hate sites?

Now with these little tidbits of info, Petunia has this advice for you MKG. I really think you would do yourself and the world a favor if you stopped spreading your hate and lies. I will continue to spread the truth and protection for the TRUE victims out there if your hate continues.

Got it?

Oh and one must wonder why this case is one in which a noted DV attorney is now (or was at one time) involved in? Hmmm does MKG have something to hide? I truly hope his ex has a great support system. Sister, you are in this for life, you got a bone hog for an ex-husband. My condolences go out to you.

MKG post coming soon

I promised and I try to deliver when I promise. Now dealing with an abuser myself, sometimes those promises can be delayed, but I hit wirters block and decided now was a great time to deliver. So here ya go folks, be on the lookout for the MKG expose'!!!!!!

One from the man himself - this needs no commentary

4 Glenn Sacks 01.28.09 at 7:22 pm
Scarlett has a point–When I wrote this I assumed the Minister meant this for cases when the woman was the first one to hit or strike the man. This is actually not clear–the Minister might have only meant the woman initiated the conflict without hitting/pushing, etc. If it’s only words, that’s different–verbal or emotional abuse is wrong, too, but it’s not the same as domestic violence. –GS]

Find this at: http://deanesmay.com/2009/01/28/outrage-justice-minister-fired-for-stating-obvious-truth-about-domestic-violence/#comment-168097

New IPhone App has MRA's scrambling with fear

You all have got to read this and tell me this guy is for real? This seem like invasion of privacy to me, But then again I an not a lawer.

Now tell me why you would be worried if you have nothing to hide? Are women not allowed to be safe and protect themselves from abusive men jerks idiots MRA's/FR's?

New iPhone App Helps Vet a Potential Mate - Blogger News Network

More denial of women's rights - specifically the right to PRIVACY!!!

In fact, Samantha, LDS Family Services, the Hesses and the hospital all worked hand in glove to keep the baby from Shawn. That included the hospital's designating Samantha a "no information" patient. That meant that the hospital could only release information about the baby to people Samantha approved. Needless to say, that did not include Shawn.

We have only heard Shawn's side of this story. We have heard NOTHING from Samantha. She might very well have had a good reason for not wanting infoprmation about herself released to anyone - hence being a no-information patient. And just because some man deposits his sperm into a woman does not mean that 9 months later (or 2 months later or 5 months later or WHENEVER) that man has the right to DEMAND that information about any woman be released to him. PERIOD!!!!!

Women have no rights in the USA, and this just proves it with the thinking of the PIGS MRA's.....

SHUT EVERYTHING OFF!!!!!

Jim A. Hall Says:

September 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
He should immediately turn off all utilities in his name: electric, water, sewer, natural gas.........

MRA lessons for how to get a woman out of your hosue after you beat her and she has you removed through the court system.

Petunia has a new project in the works

Well it has come to my attention that a FR blogger has his panties in a wad because he is no longer on top of the domestic violence categroy at the rival blogsite. It appears that a protective mother's blog has held that spot for some time now. he has accused this protective mother of cheating, he has attacked her on his blog, he has twisted her posts around to suit his purpose, all to gain that ever elite top spot.

Only problem is people are seeing that maybe just maybe the protective moms out here on the 'Net are telling the truth. And they are steering away from his blog to hers. And that has his panties in a knot.

Now you may ask, to what level does he now resort, Petunia? Well he has stolen images from this protective mother's blog, he has also violated copyright protection laws by slightly changing a protective mother's organization's name and using that to post abusive motehr stories. And he does not only post abusive moms stories, he posts graphic gory details as well. Not content to just continue his spews on his site he must now resort to illegal tactics (theft of images as well as copyright infringement).

So what is Petunia's latest project, you might ask? Well Petunia is never one to back down so I have decided it is time for good ol' Markie Poo to be featured exposed right here. So Markie Poo I know you will watch me soon. I will watch you watching me sucker. And I will not be nice either. I am angry that abusive men like you get away with the things you do, so I write about it. I show you to the world. So get ready Markie Poo, GAMES ON!!!!!

Will the MRA's ever leave Holly Collins and Jennifer Collins alone?????

I doubt it. He is getting too much free press by using this story of heartache. He is using Jennifer, Holly and their siblings in order to further a dangerous stance - the stand that all parents deserve or "have the right" to equal custody. NO THEY DO NOT!!! When on parent is abusive, then he/she shoudl not be allowed to influence children in any way. The children who are now grown have stated the father not only abused their mother, but also them. GS get over yourself and find some other story to talk about. Quit using and FURTHER ABUSING this mother and her GROWN children!!!!!!!!!!!!

More Maternal Deprivation?

David Brandt Says:

September 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I am going to join my brothers who have left. This country is going down the tubes fast, and my son and I are leaving before they seal the gates. Screw 'em all. If I thought for a moment there would be enough of us to create real change, I would stay--however that IMO could only happen by revolution/anarchy.

You notice he says "Screw 'em all." Does this include the "son's" mother? So much for shared parenting. Only when it suits them and then only if it eases the child support payments.

Cracker Barrel gets it right!!!!!

Janet Fellows Says:

September 18th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Another example of GUILTY till proven innocent

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/20981703/detail.html

No trial yet, and yet the company has seen fit to ban him for life from all its restaurants.

Janet, I would like to know where it says that any restaurant HAS to allow any person to enter their premises. If Cracker Barrel chooses to evict Troy West from their establishments forever, then this is their choice. And might I add, KUDOS TO CRACKER BARREL!!!! A company who stands up to bullies and abusers and says we will not take this and our patrons have a right to be safe from assaults while dining here. Or while shopping. Or while doing anything for that matter. Once again KUDOS CRACKER BARREL!!!!!

Read more below:

Cracker Barrel Bans Beating Suspect For Life

Police: Man Beat Woman At Cracker Barrel

Cracker Barrel Beating May Be Hate Crime

Cracker Barrel Beating Suspect Could Face More Charges

Out of context?????

Duncan Macleod Says:

September 20th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Atilla mate ..... dont feed the livestoclk , referencing other sites only give them thrills when they troll here to take things out of context , your a better man than that mate,.

Okay Duncan MATE, explain to me how I take things out of context when I copy and paste everything that appears on the cult site? Please explain that one to me doo fus.

Poor Attila has to degrade himself

Attila L. Vinczer Says:

September 20th, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Duncan, you are right. I was just having some fun poking at a vile clump of cells. Thanks for the reminder though.

Attila

Don't be too hard on yourself Attila...... I tell my ex the same thing when he says he is just a dum ol redneck. I think no you are a REALLY dumb redneck :-) Have a nice day Hunster and have fun searching for yourself.

Now I should feel sorry for him - with a name like ATTILA........

Chris_C on Tila Tequila

Chris_C Says:

September 18th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Being thrown to the ground bruised her forearms?

No you DU MASS, being grabbed, touched innapropriately by someone without being invited to do so by Tila is what bruised her arms. (rolls eyes yet again)

Mariner on Tila Tequila

Mariner Says:

September 17th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Did anyone notice what a funny round head Tequila has? She'll look very odd as she grows older.

Now we resort dear readers to making fun of her simply because of her head? (rolls eyes)

Norman L on Tila Tequila

Norman L Says:

September 16th, 2009 at 5:28 am
It seems that something very obvious has been overlooked - if a person wants to bruise themselves, the upper arms (and probably neck) are the easiest place to do it. All you do is reach across with the the other hand and squeeze. It would have been too obvious if she did her neck - she would probably have to prove he tried to strangle her, by having witnesses or something.

Okay now we have here folks a man who says she did this to herself? Shut your piehole Norman, the flies are getting thick from your shit spews.

Cousin Dave

Cousin Dave Says:

September 15th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
To me, those photos don't look like impact or squeezing bruises. They look like she's been shooting up.

And here we go again with more of the "she's a druggy" theories. Are you a doctor, do you have access to her life day in, day out, 24/7? No? Well then shut your damn FR idjut trap!!!!! MOOOOOOORON!!!!!

Muuru on Tila Tequila

Muuru Says:

September 15th, 2009 at 5:09 am
If the DA had proceeded with charges, she'd have received heightened attention from the media, a book deal and a Lifetime movie-of-the-week, plus a chance at some of Merriman's cash.

Since the authorities have declined to participate in her career plans, she's simply moving on to the "bonus-round" where she'll receive heightened attention from the media, a book deal and a Lifetime movie-of-the-week, and another chance at Merriman's cash.

It's a no-downside proposition for "poor little lamb" Tila.

Perhaps breathing her drunken last gasp in a twisted, flaming wreck at the bottom of a ravine might have served us all better.

You think all women who file charges because a man hits them are out for a Lifetime movie deal, a book, media attention, and MONEY????? Maybe she is like many of victims of dv? SICK AND DAMNED TIRED OF MEN THINKING THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO TO WOMEN AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!!!!!!! And then notice, gentle readers, the closing statement of this idjut FR:

Perhaps breathing her drunken last gasp in a twisted, flaming wreck at the bottom of a ravine might have served us all better.

Need I say more?

menscollegeactivist.org on Tila Tequila

menscollegeactivist.org Says:

September 14th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Shes a violent crackhead....just like Rhianna. These crackhead girls think they are unstoppable and untouchable.

Okay now let's attack not just Tila, but Rihanna as well. Was YOUR ex-wife a crackhead to MCA? Oh yeah that's right - all of you idiot FR's say any woman who does not bow down to your every command is either nuts, sluts, or on drugs. G'bye idjut.

mrcustodycoach on Tila Tequila

mrcustodycoach.com Says:

September 14th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I dare not speculate as to the source of "Tila's" alleged bruising. What I can say with the utmost confidence is that a California DA is NOT dropping a high profile case against an athlete, particularly in these times of highly publicized incidents, if she shows those arms to either the police or the district attorney.

And, if they did, it is they she should be suing, not Merriman.

And why shouldn't she sue Merriam? Oh because he was only doing what any good "man" would do? Maybe just maybe she wasn't drunk, maybe she was just damned tired of a bossy fool man tellilng her what to do? I am pretty sick myself of men thinking they are smarter, better, etc etc than women (meaning 99.9999999999% of the FR idiots out there, especially those who insist on searching for themselves in order to see if I am "talking" about them again. Have you found what you are looking for YET Atilla?)

Tila Tequila's DV Charges Against NFL's Merriman Dropped, Tequila Plans Civil Suit

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4222

The bruises are pictured above. They could have been made by Merriman and, frankly, they could be anything. They could be makeup, bruises from something else, bruises because he grabbed her to prevent her driving drunk, or a multitude of other things. Some women bruise very easily--I've no idea if Tequila is one of them.

Okay let's go through these one at a time.

They could be makeup MAKEUP?!?!?!? Like she has the time to do something like this and to even make sure that the bruises "match" as time goes on?, bruises from something else WHAT ELSE?!?!?!?!?, bruises because he grabbed her He should not have "GRABBED HER" PERIOD, he could have alerted law enforcement to prevent her driving drunk, or a multitude of other things WHAT OTHER THINGS?!?!??!?!?!?!. Some women bruise very easily--I've no idea if Tequila is one of them Who cares if she bruises easily or normally or if it takes a herd of elephants trampling her to make her bruise - the point is he touched her inappropriately, she bruised as a result. Whether she bruised or not is irrelevant, he TOUCHED HER INAPPROPRIATELY!!!! He should be charged!!!!.

Now let's go back to the opening sentence in this little diatribe:

They could have been made by Merriman and, frankly, they could be anything.The real question "BS" GS is this:

Should this alleged perpetrator be allowed to put his hands on another person because of his alleged reason? There is ABSOLUTELY no reason anyone should touch anyone else for any reason. PERIOD!!!! Put that in your woman hating pipe and smoke it!!!!!

Now I wonder what his cultists have to say about this issue?

goodbye MARK GODBEY

Wow Mark Godby Insults a protective mother who reposts an article on another protective mother's blog, pointing out true statistics gleaned from USA goevrnment research. In case you forgot shithead, do you recall this comment on her blog?

You must be smoking crack in your car… (excuse me, your home?)

Comment by mkg4583 — September 8, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

Well how about this shit for brains Mark Godbutt?

Another mad mom blogger NANCY CARROLL, aka, rightsformothers.com, aka, car-woman? that always get it WRONG, posted: http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/straight-from-the-u-s-department-of-health-human-services-mouth-children-are-more-at-risk-with-fathers/

“Straight From The U.S. Department of Health & Human Service’s Mouth: Children are More at Risk With Fathers” as if it were JUST RELEASED..???…. but got I got news:
That statistic is from a 1996 report, NANCY CARROLL…. Try the newest HHS report, moron. Below is from the 2007 report.

Now that we have that straight Mark "merde pour le cerveau" Godbey, why do you use even older research in your article below? I am waiting Mark "shit für Gehirn" Godbey. Still waiting merda per i cervelli. No answer? I thought not.

Do children do best with one parent over another? Or does biology determine who is the better parent?

If you ask the feminists of the 70s who wanted to be free of restrictive child-rearing and assume an equal station in the workplace and politics, the answer to the first question would be no. Why would feminists give up their biologically superior position of motherhood, in which a mother is the primary caregiver, in favor of a job? What narcissists mother would do that?

And yet, today, if you ask the very self-same feminists who are leading the charge to narrow sole-custody of children in divorce proceedings to a woman based on some “biological advantage” the answer to the second question would be yes.

Upon this, you have the creation of a legally untenable position given to women based on gender. To get around “having your cake and eating it, too,” state family law has created the “imaginary world” of the “primary parent” dictum, which guides family law today, which is just a primary rehashing of “tender years doctrine”, both of which do not have the legal merit whatsover, nor the empirical research to support either.

But if you go back to the Maternal Deprivation nonsense, you quickly find the empirical research that throws this theory back into the area of “junk science” where it belongs. Maternal Deprivation is both empirically wrong and a sexist theory.

The junk science theory and refutation can be found here:
http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bowlby.html

“Although Bowlby may not dispute that young children form multiple attachments, he still contends that the attachment to the mother is unique in that it is the first to appear and remains the strongest of all. However, on both of these counts, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

* Schaffer & Emerson (1964) noted that specific attachments started at about 8 months and, very shortly thereafter, the infants became attached to other people. By 18 months very few (13%) were attached to only one person; some had five or more attachments.

* Rutter (1981) points out that several indicators of attachment (such as protest or distress when attached person leaves) has been shown for a variety of attachment figures – fathers, siblings, peers and even inanimate objects.

Critics such as Rutter have also accused Bowlby of not distinguishing between deprivation and privation – the complete lack of an attachment bond, rather than its loss. Rutter stresses that the quality of the attachment bond is the most important factor, rather than just deprivation in the critical period.

Another criticism of 44 Thieves Study as that it concluded that affectionless psychopathy was caused by maternal deprivation. This is correlational data and as such only shows a relationship between these two variables. Indeed, other external variables, such as diet, parental income, education etc. may have affected the behaviour of the 44 thieves, and not, as concluded, the disruption of the attachment bond.”

There are implications arising from Bowlby’s work. As he believed the mother to be the most central care giver and that this care should be given on a continuous basis an obvious implication is that mothers should not go out to work. There have been many attacks on this claim:

* Mothers are the exclusive carers in only a very small percentage of human societies; often there are a number of people involved in the care of children, such as relations and friends (Weisner & Gallimore, 1977).

* Ijzendoorn & Tavecchio (1987) argue that a stable network of adults can provide adequate care and that this care may even have advantages over a system where a mother has to meet all a child’s needs.

* There is evidence that children develop better with a mother who is happy in her work, than a mother who is frustrated by staying at home (Schaffer, 1990).

There are many articles relating to this nonsense, and how it has been refuted. The original theory was promulgated by John Bowlby. Bowlby grew up mother-fixated because he did not have a relationship with his father. See why here.

Psychological research includes a shocking history and continuation of maternal deprivation experiments on animals. While maternal deprivation experiments have been conducted far more frequently on rhesus macaques and other monkeys, chimpanzees were not spared as victims of this unnecessary research.
Maternal Deprivation applies to monkeys only.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, I have a new avatar for you. I don't think the Madonna bra look is right for you. I have this full size right now, just let me know if you want me to resize it for you.

Drumroll please!!!!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

They want multiple wives and many servant girls......

lujlp Says:

September 11th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Becuase ture tradition marrige was one man half a dozen wifes and however many servent girls there were in the house

So I guess lujlp, you want this? Would these multiple wives you request be the variety to bow down to your every whim?










Please tell me when you invent that time machine, I would love to go back in time and get the first tv (nope not far enough back), maybe the first car? (nah still not far enough). Oh I know!!!!!! I can bring back the first wheel.

BE AFRAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Child support, federal tax refunds and more

Okay here is the latest numbnuts comments:

Scott Says:

September 10th, 2009 at 11:44 am
a2homeFamily I have a question. The money that the states hold, where does the interest go ? Do the states keep it ? Is it passed on as it should be ?

Okay Scott, I will ask you this one. Does the IRS send you interest on the taxes it has held and possibly used during the year? Or do you allow the federal government to hold that money "ineterest-free"? Might want to be careful what you wish for. The federal government might just say - okay all these "deadbeat" parents (mostly dads) want to raise hell about their refunds, we will jsut add a new code which says we have 6 months from the date of receiving return to process a refund if one is due. This will then automatically cover for those deadbeats who utilize a tax refund to partially pay their child support.

This will then penalize at least 80% of the general population who sometimes rely on those refunds coming at at a specific time in order to do for their families what is needed. Some families use this money to get braces for example. Some may use it for family vacation funds (granted not a necessity, but something for the family nonetheless). There are many things a family (or even individual) will use a refund for. You keep it up with your stupid bitching and the IRS will change the rules and NOBODY will get their refund within days or even weeks. It will be MONTHS. And when you pay taxes and file your return, you agree to not getting any interest. It is actually not the state government holding the money, it is the federal government holding it for the period of time required for any appeals. The federal government then releases the money to the state.


(rolls eyes)

Child support or otherwise entitled: An MRA/FR FINALLY telling the TRUTH

This one will be hard to follow folks but the basic premise is this: A woman should not get child support because she would have to pay for her house anyway, she has to buy food and food is cheaper when you fix it in bulk than if you do so when you fix it for one or two, and many many more of these "I do not think I should have to give that bitch any of MY money". Never mind this man probably does not realize what things cost (like groceries) when they were married and lets ignore the fact that things have gone up quite a bit in the last few years. In my area prices on milk doubled plus and now they are back down to a lower price but not where they were say 4 years ago.

shaun stapleton Says:

September 9th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
it is messed how the child support is not getting to "the child". but childsupport should not be used to prevent the mother from losing her home, even if the child lives there. she would have to provide a roof over her head any ways regardless if she had the kid with her. i often wonder where my child support goes. it obviously isn't to feed them since my ex gets about $550 a month in food stamps You know this how? and my kids wear old cloths that they had when we were together and we have been split for over a year. Maybe she sends them to you with play clothes saving new stuff for school etc and when she and i were together we didn't even eat $550 a month to feed us and all our kids. You had this much CONTROL over her that you knew to the penny how much was spent on food? and on top of that, when she sends them over to my place she puts them in flip flops. $2 pair of shoes. but just a few days after the first of the month she shows me the brand new Timberlands she bought for herself. and this is the same woman who claims she never has money. and ever since we have been split, by boys have had problems in school. Well judging by your English skills, I can see why they are having issues in school, and notice how you say "MY BOYS" - are they not her boys too? if we could get the family law system fixed for joint custody where it would be equal time for both parents and no child support being paid by either parent there would much less divorce in the world and women would be less likely to leave when there is a "little problem". What in your mind is a "little problem"? Is not the father beating his wife or children, being extremely controlling and intimidating, or raping his daughter - a HUGE problem? We have already seen as noted in the post directly below this one that some of your kind believe teenagers are adults - I wonder in what capacity that person feels teenagers are adults? In all ways??????? in some cases divorce is required like in cases of abuse (which i was the victim of, not her but you can't tell feminist that) or adultry (which i was a victim of also, but hey, it's only wrong when a man does it right?) I wonder what your "true name is - so we can set our little research agents on this and determine who was truly the "VICTIM" in this scenario? My dad paid child support from the time i was 8 until i was 18. within 6 month after i turned 18 she lost everything. so that tells you exactly where the child support goes in over 99% of the cases. Okay so your mother losing everything is the determining factor in how ALL women spend child support? Until my ex stopped paying, I always set aside a portion of the child support in a bank account for our child. Its long gone since he stopped paying though. Poor kid. and you can't tell me that "well, i need to pay rent, car note, electricity bill because it indirectly takes care of the kids". Ummm yes we can because it does. And should the child(ren) suffer when it was the mother who cared for the children all along and be forced to live with dad and new stepmonster simply because dad is greedy? Or is it new stepMONSTER who is the greedy one?) child support is only a means of slavery to men and a punishment to fathers who have sacrificed for their family so they can live a better life. what has the mother usually sacrificed? usually only a few stretch marks from pregnacy and the right to have an excuse to enslave a man with something they hide behind called "child support". A FEW STRETCH MARKS?!?!?!?!?!?!? Childbirth while safer today than it has ever been is still not just a "few stretch marks". Sometimes women have to undergo surgery in order to give birth. This requires anesthetic and being sliced open, ie. MAJOR SURGERY!!!!! i am not mad at all that i have to pay it and have ALWAYS paid it with no problem. i just wish i could have it regulated to she only has to buy things the kids like food and clothes because in reality that is the ONLY thing child suppport should EVER be spent on. I guess your children can sleep in the car while the mom and possibly a new boyfriend - that is if you LET her have one and don't chase him off with your control freak antics - sleep in the one bedroom apartment or studio which is all they need. Add on the cost of an extra bedroom or two and whammo the cost doubles easily. Oh and lets not forget these little buggers need their clothes washed too, or should they have to do it on a rock like our ancestors did? How about power to work the hot water heater in order for them to bathe? Or should these precious children be forced to take cold showers or none at all? Oh yeah and schools nowadays are increasingly expecting families to own computers for research to be done at home on the Internet. Oh they can go to the library for that. But JR make sure you get everything done in one hour because that is all the good ole public library system will allow. Sorry if you did not get everything you needed. I guess that C or D will just have to suffice. but what ever makes hers and her boyfriends life easier i guess.

Okay now I better stop before I yank one of these guys through my computer monitor and explain the facts of life in 2009 to them. This "poster - aka good dad (NOT!!!!)" seems to think this woman should be able to feed a family of at least 3 on 550 a month. I want to know where he expects her to grocery shop because I will be there with bells on. Even utilizing coupons, grocery specials, double coupons and family and friends discounts for employment, I spend way more than 550 on my household. And 550 to me (depending on the state where this woman lives) is maximum benefits for a family size of at least 4.

Like I said, I don't need to say anymore on this subject because this "great dad (puke gag cough snort) has said it all.

Today's teens are adults.........

NE Says:

September 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I could see with a teen how abuse can play into behaviors, more so than if the crime were committed by an adult. In my counseling,

Today's teens are adults... This isn't the 1950's..

I wonder - is this why there are sooooo many teens being taken advantage of by adult men? Hmmmmmmmmm........ I wonder about a lot of things with this poster.......

LISTEN TO ME AND LISTEN GOOD!!!! Children "BELONG" to FATHERS!

Derek Says:

September 6th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Sounds like the state is enforcing old common law: Children born out of wedlock belong to the parents. It's unfortunate they don't enforce the other side of common law: All kids that are born into wedlock belong to the father. It was a much better system for the kids.

Got that?????? I figured you would see it too.