![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Galileo" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: Like it or not, impoverished fathers should never be threatened with jail Impoverished? What about the impoverished mothers, who are trying to raise the kids? Whichever person winds up with the kids (woman or man) has the greater burden, and you know it. So if mom is impoverished, she can get government assistance, but if dad is impoverished he can go to jail? and the State has absolutely no business threatening law abiding citizens over money issues, especially when they squander massive amounts of money so easily themselves. And state troopers have no business stopping people for speeding when the troopers routinely speed themselves? We're right back to: if you don't want to pay support for a kid, don't have one. Oh, so you are suggesting that a married man whose wife divorces him because she found someone else should never had fathered children with her just in case she might some day decide to divorce him? Do you really believe that it is a man's responsibility to support those children *at the same standard of living they enjoyed before the divorce*? Because that's what the CS system demands-- the same standard of living. It isn't the *fact" of support, but the *level* of support that most are complaining about. Do you really believe that Dad should get a second job so Junior can continue playing 3 sports? Or do you think that Junior can scale back a bit so Dad only has to work one job? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gee. If this dude faked his demise just to get out of child support, imagine
what Osama would fake knowing he not only owes a lot of child support, but medical bills, bullet bills, bomb bills, bodyguard bills, and an awful lot of folks who would love to collect the reward for his head. He probably is still hanging out in some cold, dank cave somewhere, but he almost has to be on his own because the sheer mistrust that a $25 bazillion reward tends to develop in common folks who are supposed to be servants of the big shot. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Docky Wocky" wrote in message news:ZdFAf.1731$zh2.1487@trnddc01... Gee. If this dude faked his demise just to get out of child support, imagine what Osama would fake knowing he not only owes a lot of child support, Do they have child support laws over there? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Galileo" wrote in message oups.com... P. Fritz wrote: A falsely created debt matched by a falsely created death.......not a problem to me. Falsely created debt? Yes, that is correct.....a falsely created debt So, you approve of men who father children and contribute nothing to their upbringing or support... You are confusing support with the transfer of wealth at the end of a gun......there is a big difference. increasing the chance that the mother (and children) will wind up on some sort of government support? ****ing brilliant. Our tax dollars at work. Actually, allowing the mother to have custody in the first place greatly increases the risk of the child ending up in jail, on drugs, a high school drop out, and or unwed and pregnant. THAT is ****ign brilliant....our tax dollars at work Free hint for the clueless.....college is not a right Free hint for the comprehension impaired: read the whole paragraph again. I said "IF" the mother could cover basic necessities on her own, then maybe the father could start a college fund. What's your suggestion for another way to contribute to the kids' support? Once again, you confuse support with the transfer of wealth at the end of a gun......there is a big difference. Provide proof that he re ran away from his responsibilities and was not driven away, and had monetary demand placed on him, literally at the point of a gun. I'm going by the article that was provided. Provide another source that disproves it. Please. Did the article say he "ran away" My parents got divorced when I was 5, and my father paid support to my mom until I was a teenager...because he knows I am partly his responsibility. He was (and is) able to take responsibility for his actions. From the whining we're seeing on this issue, it seems like a lot of men out there aren't mature enough to cope with that idea. Actually, it is women that are not mature enough to cope with the responsibilities that come with their sole and unilateral choices. In the future, if you are unable to accept the responsibility of paying for a kid...I suggest you keep your dick in your pants. Typical feminitwit claptrap. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Galileo" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: Like it or not, impoverished fathers should never be threatened with jail Impoverished? What about the impoverished mothers, who are trying to raise the kids? Mothers that are incapible of supporting their own kids should be jailed. Whichever person winds up with the kids (woman or man) has the greater burden, and you know it. Stop drinking the koolaid, you might be able to think. and the State has absolutely no business threatening law abiding citizens over money issues, especially when they squander massive amounts of money so easily themselves. And state troopers have no business stopping people for speeding when the troopers routinely speed themselves? We're right back to: if you don't want to pay support for a kid, don't have one. If you expect to receive child support in order to support a kid, don't have one. Funny how it works both ways. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "teachrmama" wrote "Galileo" wrote ..................................... We're right back to: if you don't want to pay support for a kid, don't have one. Oh, so you are suggesting that a married man whose wife divorces him because she found someone else should never had fathered children with her just in case she might some day decide to divorce him? Do you really believe that it is a man's responsibility to support those children *at the same standard of living they enjoyed before the divorce*? Because that's what the CS system demands-- the same standard of living. It isn't the *fact" of support, but the *level* of support that most are complaining about. Do you really believe that Dad should get a second job so Junior can continue playing 3 sports? Or do you think that Junior can scale back a bit so Dad only has to work one job? ==== Curious that the comment "If you don't want to support your kids, don't have them," always seems to apply to the father but not the mother (who is continually demanding more from dad because *she* doesn't want to support the kids *she* had). ==== |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "P. Fritz" wrote in Once again, you confuse support with the transfer of wealth at the end of a gun......there is a big difference. Transfer of wealth, I like that term! :-) I'll have the bank transfer over all my wealth to the state, wonder what they can buy with $75 these days? LOL I'd include my 85 Toyota, but I need that to keep making my wealth! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "DB" wrote in message et... "Chris" wrote in Good. Now instead of him PAYING support, the tax payers will now pay to support HIM. Tax dollars hard at work! nd now owes more than $30,000 in child support and faces an escape charge, authorities said. Shows how petty society has become when they jail their citizens over a matter of money! I'm sure the two kids are alive and well, so what's the point? But what do you think about a parent faking their own death to avoid supporting their own children? In your opinion, is this something that is acceptable? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Moon Shyne" wrote in But what do you think about a parent faking their own death to avoid supporting their own children? In your opinion, is this something that is acceptable? In a free society, my opinion of another's behavior does not matter nor should personal opinions be used as a basis for establishing a law to support those opinions. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
teachrmama wrote:
"Galileo" wrote in message oups.com... P. Fritz wrote: A falsely created debt matched by a falsely created death.......not a problem to me. Falsely created debt? So, you approve of men who father children and contribute nothing to their upbringing or support...increasing the chance that the mother (and children) will wind up on some sort of government support? ****ing brilliant. Our tax dollars at work. IF the father was required to pay for 1/2 the cost to meet the child's basic needs (shelter, clothing and food--no luxury items) that would be one thing. But requiring a man to pay for anything beyond that is way too intrusive. Married couples aren't required to pay for more than the basic needs of a child--why should divorced or never married fathers be required to pay beyond that? Free hint for the clueless.....college is not a right Free hint for the comprehension impaired: read the whole paragraph again. I said "IF" the mother could cover basic necessities on her own, then maybe the father could start a college fund. What's your suggestion for another way to contribute to the kids' support? Even if the mother is able to cover the basic needs of the child, college is still not a right, and the father should not be required to start a college fund. Provide proof that he re ran away from his responsibilities and was not driven away, and had monetary demand placed on him, literally at the point of a gun. I'm going by the article that was provided. Provide another source that disproves it. Please. My parents got divorced when I was 5, and my father paid support to my mom until I was a teenager...because he knows I am partly his responsibility. He was (and is) able to take responsibility for his actions. From the whining we're seeing on this issue, it seems like a lot of men out there aren't mature enough to cope with that idea. I think that a lot of the complaints aren't about supporting children--but about the intrusiveness of a system that gets to decide how much children "need" based on what a man earns. Needs are needs--a child does not "need" more every time his father gets a raise. A decent man wants his child's life to improve as his own situation improves. Please note, I said a decent man. There are plenty that prefer to spend that raise on a new car, new honey, new boat, etc... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
Sample US Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 28 | January 21st 04 06:23 PM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |