You deserve this!

[elohiym]

If someone can make a union with with children of the devil, they cannot possibly be Christian.

Who has made a union with children of the devil? You're acting delusional. Consider that, if you were BOLCATS, as has been alleged by the moderator in the Woodshed, you were claiming you weren't Christian and disparaging Christianity, and perhaps you should be less inflammatory.

 

[elohiym]

Apparently not. He believes that if he pretends to ignore the question it will just go away.

Oh no, I'm going to ride this bull until it's tame.

 

[theophilus]

Her defense to not being a feminist is having a husband who treated her like a queen.

For Rusha, her defense is that she was granted full custody of her kids.

Which is all absolutely moot. And hilarious- think about it for a second :chuckle:
Did logic just decide to jump out the window when they made these statements?

1 Peter 3

We are a fallen, cursed race.

I can hardly wait for Jesus to return.

Our logic is fallen, our reason is fallen...oh the grief.

 

[elohiym]

Her defense to not being a feminist is having a husband who treated her like a queen.

No, you lying troll, she treated him like a king. Do you need remedial reading lessons?

 

[Crucible]

All you've established is that you're an idiot.

:dunce:

I'm unconcerned with the opinions of liberal Brits there, Arthur Brain. You all are just a million different looking Stephen Fry's :chuckle:

 

[Crucible]

No, you lying troll, she treated him like a king. Do you need remedial reading lessons?

"He treated me as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.
Like I was his most treasured gift from God"

Do you need remedial deduction lessons?

 

[patrick jane]

Her defense to not being a feminist is having a husband who treated her like a queen.

For Rusha, her defense is that she was granted full custody of her kids.

Which is all absolutely moot. And hilarious- think about it for a second :chuckle:
Did logic just decide to jump out the window when they made these statements?

It's not a matter of defense or her defense, they aren't defending themselves, they just tell it like they see it.

 

[elohiym]

"He treated me as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.
Like I was his most treasured gift from God"

Do you need remedial deduction lessons?

The man was wise if he believes the scriptures and valued his wife so.

He was being a patriarch and you are disparaging him? Figures.

 

[Crucible]

The man was wise if he believes the scriptures and valued his wife so.

He was being a patriarch and you are disparaging him? Figures.

It has nothing to do with him. The fact of the matter is that it has nothing to do with whether or not she's a feminist either.

 

[elohiym]

It has nothing to do with him. The fact of the matter is that it has nothing to do with whether or not she's a feminist either.

Then drop that argument and stop calling her a feminist. :duh:

 

[Rusha]

"He treated me as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.
Like I was his most treasured gift from God"

Do you need remedial deduction lessons?

Oh ... so your interpretation of the reason to love someone is:

"I treated him like a king, he treated me like something on the bottom of his shoe which caused me to love him all the more!"

You really do have a delusional view of life.

 

[Rusha]

It's not a matter of defense or her defense, they aren't defending themselves, they just tell it like they see it.

lain: I don't need to defend myself. In my case, I received sole, physical custody because it was in the best interest of my children.

In my father's case, he received sole physical custody of the children because it was in their best interest.

He just wishes to make the claim that any man, regardless of their habits, morality, criminal history, promiscuity, addictions, etc. should be awarded custody of the children.

 

[Crucible]

Then drop that argument and stop calling her a feminist. :duh:

She's the one who brought it up. Adhering to an alpha male automatically makes one not feminist in their philosophy :think:

Just because one isn't afforded the luxury doesn't mean one wouldn't otherwise desire it.

 

[Crucible]

lain: I don't need to defend myself. In my case, I received sole, physical custody because it was in the best interest of my children.

In my father's case, he received sole physical custody of the children because it was in their best interest.

He just wishes to make the claim that any man, regardless of their habits, morality, criminal history, promiscuity, addictions, etc. should be awarded custody of the children.

It's not a secret that domestic courts have a bias against men or in favor of women. This is something everyone with a brain knows, it's been going on for decades.

You deny it, as only a person who is internally warped by feminism can do so. That is why the conversation has turned into and gone the way that it has- because you simply just will not accept that reality.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Cruc. I suggest a timeout. It's pile on time. The chances are you will slip. The mods are going to pull the hammer at the slightest complaint.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Cruc. I suggest a timeout. It's pile on time. The chances are you will slip. The mods are going to pull the hammer at the slightest complaint.

You BOLCATS, or do you just like framing innocent guys?

 

[Rusha]

It's not a secret that domestic courts have a bias against men

:yawn:

 

[Crucible]

:yawn:

83% of mothers win custody over their children in divorces, and enact 68% of all divorces. In most states, the wife is awarded an extra counselor to rail against the husband, usually from social services, in all domestic allegations.

:yawn:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

83% of mothers win custody over their children in divorces,

And how many of those cases were mutually agreed upon?

 

[Rusha]

83% of mothers win custody over their children in divorces, and enact 68% of all divorces. In most states, the wife is awarded an extra counselor to rail against the husband, usually from social services, in all domestic allegations.

:yawn:

Oh. Interesting story.

:yawn:

And how many of those cases were mutually agreed upon?

In my case, both were. My ex-husband and I agreed that due to his occupation, the children's physical home should be with me. There was never an issue with his visitation or how much time he spent with the kids. When he had vacations scheduled, they were with him (as long as it was scheduled around their school vacations).

In the case of my youngest daughter, his own attorney gave him an ultimatum: Either sign the papers and give her sole custody OR find yourself another attorney. He signed because he never really wanted custody in the first place. He was using her to hurt me and even stated if I ever left him he would make sure I never saw my daughter again.