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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
avarice for votes
"Werebat" wrote in message news:mvBzf.8885$NE.6787@dukeread12... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:yoqzf.7671$NE.5223@dukeread12... Bob Whiteside wrote: "abdd" wrote in message ... Did I mention the judge was an idiot feminist bitch who had a reputation as the most anti-father judge in the county? I have money set aside to throw a huge party when this bitch dies! There seems to be three categories of judges: A) Feminist women who will protect their "sisters" at all costs no matter what. B) Alpha male wannabe men who try to amass a virtual harem by helping women who are, of course, all victims needing the judge's help for things to be fair. C) Non-feminist women who expect women to be held responsible for their actions and to hold their children in high regard like they themselves do by rearing their kids rather than pursuing political offices like judgeships. The underlying question is - Where do these judges come from? Types A and B judges are liberal Democrat governor appointees. Type C judges are conservative Republican governor appointees. In my state we have had one Republican governor since 1975. We have not had a Republican governor for 20 years. So we have the bench heavily impacted by Type A and B liberal types. Since these political appointees nearly always run for re-election unopposed, they continue to have a free hand to advance their ideology in the judicial system. And because they stay around so long they become Appeals Court Judges and Supreme Court Justices. I challenge the notion that republicans are in some way opposed to the status quo of family court sexism. I can see where you'd get the idea, but is there any actual proof? Where are the Republican dominated states where family court is fair to men? Kansas is one. The Kansas state AG has challenged several federal CS mandates in the federal judicial system. "Challenged several federal CS mandates" is nice. Would you say that Kansas family court is fair to men? I believe Mike Cox's political affiliation is Republican, no? Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from... Republican rhetoric certainly seems more in favor of men's rights... But I don't actually see Republicans treating the issue in a concrete way any more seriously then Democrats. The sad fact is that the C$ game puts money into Republican pockets too. That they blame liberal Democrats while stuffing their pockets does not impress me much. I think you know this, but I'll restate the historic record. It was Congressional action by the Democrats that got us to where we are today. It was Democrats, led by Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, who tried to convince other members of Congress there was a "perceived connection" between fathers abandoning children and increased growth in welfare spending. Few Senators agreed. But political maneuvering in Congress allowed the idea of federal involvement in CS to be attached to other social services bills that had broader appeal and support. Upon signing the legislation in 1975 President Ford said the CS provision injected the federal government too far into family law and called on Congress to correct the defects. Congress never corrected the issues Ford raised. The Democrat controlled Congress finally acted in 1984 by expanding the powers and size of the federal OCSE based on the reasoning deadbeat fathers were America's number one problem. President Reagan could have vetoed the bill, but at the time he did not have enough Republican votes in Congress to sustain a veto and he would have been overridden by the Democrat Congress. During the Clinton years the federal powers over CS were expanded further. Administration delegates to the Hague Conference caved in 1995, and told foreign governments federal involvement in CS matters would be expanded. President Clinton used his bully pulpit to "sell" expanding federal involvement in CS to the American public as more welfare reform. The current CS system we all suffer through today is the result of Democrats flexing their muscles in Congress and Republicans not being able to stop them. BTW - The most father-friendly party is the Libertarians. At the last presidential election, the Libertarians had a portion of their platform devoted to fathers and father's rights. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
avarice for votes
"Bob Whiteside" wrote ..... The current CS system we all suffer through today is the result of Democrats flexing their muscles in Congress and Republicans not being able to stop them. === Arrggghh!! What a buncha crap! You act like the Republicans are your poor powerless friends who simply cannot stand up to the evil all powerful Democrats! The Republican majority has been in power for several years now and haven't done a damn thing. You think that's because of the big and mighty Democrats?? Noooo....not only are they incompetent, they just don't give a damn and if fathers don't soon wake up to that glaring fact, they will get absolutely nowhere! === BTW - The most father-friendly party is the Libertarians. At the last presidential election, the Libertarians had a portion of their platform devoted to fathers and father's rights. === There you go. The Democrats think women should have preferential treatment and the Republicans are just plain stupid and couldn't care less about anyone who doesn't have a few bills to slip them. Fathers need to move, enmass, to the Libertarian Party. === === |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
avarice for votes
Bob Whiteside wrote: I think you know this, but I'll restate the historic record. It was Congressional action by the Democrats that got us to where we are today. It was Democrats, led by Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, who tried to convince other members of Congress there was a "perceived connection" between fathers abandoning children and increased growth in welfare spending. Few Senators agreed. But political maneuvering in Congress allowed the idea of federal involvement in CS to be attached to other social services bills that had broader appeal and support. Upon signing the legislation in 1975 President Ford said the CS provision injected the federal government too far into family law and called on Congress to correct the defects. Congress never corrected the issues Ford raised. The Democrat controlled Congress finally acted in 1984 by expanding the powers and size of the federal OCSE based on the reasoning deadbeat fathers were America's number one problem. President Reagan could have vetoed the bill, but at the time he did not have enough Republican votes in Congress to sustain a veto and he would have been overridden by the Democrat Congress. During the Clinton years the federal powers over CS were expanded further. Administration delegates to the Hague Conference caved in 1995, and told foreign governments federal involvement in CS matters would be expanded. President Clinton used his bully pulpit to "sell" expanding federal involvement in CS to the American public as more welfare reform. The current CS system we all suffer through today is the result of Democrats flexing their muscles in Congress and Republicans not being able to stop them. And during the various times Republicans have been in control of congress, did they do anything to rectify the situation or did they keep the money flowing and the fathers second-class citizens in family court? I'm sorry, I've heard plenty of Republicans pointing the finger of blame at Democrats regarding the situation, and seen very little action that they've taken when it could have been. I'll agree that much of the bad situation we are now in is due to policies pushed by liberals and Democrats (although the misplaced chivalry of certain Republicans has certainly done its damage too), but as I said before I am unimpressed with conservatives and Republicans who claim to be hewpwess widdle innocents at the mercy of those mean ol' liberal Democrats while enjoying their slice of the C$ pie. It's like listening to Democrats **** and moan about Republicans starting the war in Iraq when most of them voted in favor of it. Sorry, doesn't wash. BTW - The most father-friendly party is the Libertarians. At the last presidential election, the Libertarians had a portion of their platform devoted to fathers and father's rights. Agreed. That's why I voted for Badnarik. - Ron ^*^ |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
avarice for votes
Gini wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote .... The current CS system we all suffer through today is the result of Democrats flexing their muscles in Congress and Republicans not being able to stop them. === Arrggghh!! What a buncha crap! You act like the Republicans are your poor powerless friends who simply cannot stand up to the evil all powerful Democrats! The Republican majority has been in power for several years now and haven't done a damn thing. You think that's because of the big and mighty Democrats?? Noooo....not only are they incompetent, they just don't give a damn and if fathers don't soon wake up to that glaring fact, they will get absolutely nowhere! === BTW - The most father-friendly party is the Libertarians. At the last presidential election, the Libertarians had a portion of their platform devoted to fathers and father's rights. === There you go. The Democrats think women should have preferential treatment and the Republicans are just plain stupid and couldn't care less about anyone who doesn't have a few bills to slip them. Fathers need to move, enmass, to the Libertarian Party. That's pretty much my take on things too. I'm not sure the Libs will ever get anywhere but if they start making significant showings in the polls the Big Two are going to start wondering why. - Ron ^*^ |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
avarice for votes
"Werebat" wrote in message news:IpDzf.8905$NE.2954@dukeread12... Bob Whiteside wrote: I think you know this, but I'll restate the historic record. It was Congressional action by the Democrats that got us to where we are today. It was Democrats, led by Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, who tried to convince other members of Congress there was a "perceived connection" between fathers abandoning children and increased growth in welfare spending. Few Senators agreed. But political maneuvering in Congress allowed the idea of federal involvement in CS to be attached to other social services bills that had broader appeal and support. Upon signing the legislation in 1975 President Ford said the CS provision injected the federal government too far into family law and called on Congress to correct the defects. Congress never corrected the issues Ford raised. The Democrat controlled Congress finally acted in 1984 by expanding the powers and size of the federal OCSE based on the reasoning deadbeat fathers were America's number one problem. President Reagan could have vetoed the bill, but at the time he did not have enough Republican votes in Congress to sustain a veto and he would have been overridden by the Democrat Congress. During the Clinton years the federal powers over CS were expanded further. Administration delegates to the Hague Conference caved in 1995, and told foreign governments federal involvement in CS matters would be expanded. President Clinton used his bully pulpit to "sell" expanding federal involvement in CS to the American public as more welfare reform. The current CS system we all suffer through today is the result of Democrats flexing their muscles in Congress and Republicans not being able to stop them. And during the various times Republicans have been in control of congress, did they do anything to rectify the situation or did they keep the money flowing and the fathers second-class citizens in family court? I'm sorry, I've heard plenty of Republicans pointing the finger of blame at Democrats regarding the situation, and seen very little action that they've taken when it could have been. I'll agree that much of the bad situation we are now in is due to policies pushed by liberals and Democrats (although the misplaced chivalry of certain Republicans has certainly done its damage too), but as I said before I am unimpressed with conservatives and Republicans who claim to be hewpwess widdle innocents at the mercy of those mean ol' liberal Democrats while enjoying their slice of the C$ pie. It's like listening to Democrats **** and moan about Republicans starting the war in Iraq when most of them voted in favor of it. Sorry, doesn't wash. Personally, I would much rather talk about CS on the merits of the issues, not on the political side of it. But you asked me about the political stuff and I responded with the facts in the historical record as I understand it and others have written about it. But to understand the issues you have to understand how we got to where we are at. The real problem we all face is federal government intrusion into state family law and the spineless state government officials who go along with the program to get the federal government handouts. At one of the hearings I testified at before the House Judiciary Committee the chairman of the committee (a Republican) tried to tell me the state was "forced" to adopt the federal CS mandates. I went on the record telling him (respectfully of course) he was full of it. And the state had the option to not adopt the federal mandates and the only reason the state did what they did was out of greed to get the federal money. He knew I was right and went on the another question about my testimony. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
avarice for votes
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:mvBzf.8885$NE.6787@dukeread12... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:yoqzf.7671$NE.5223@dukeread12... Bob Whiteside wrote: "abdd" wrote in message ... Did I mention the judge was an idiot feminist bitch who had a reputation as the most anti-father judge in the county? I have money set aside to throw a huge party when this bitch dies! There seems to be three categories of judges: A) Feminist women who will protect their "sisters" at all costs no matter what. B) Alpha male wannabe men who try to amass a virtual harem by helping women who are, of course, all victims needing the judge's help for things to be fair. C) Non-feminist women who expect women to be held responsible for their actions and to hold their children in high regard like they themselves do by rearing their kids rather than pursuing political offices like judgeships. The underlying question is - Where do these judges come from? Types A and B judges are liberal Democrat governor appointees. Type C judges are conservative Republican governor appointees. In my state we have had one Republican governor since 1975. We have not had a Republican governor for 20 years. So we have the bench heavily impacted by Type A and B liberal types. Since these political appointees nearly always run for re-election unopposed, they continue to have a free hand to advance their ideology in the judicial system. And because they stay around so long they become Appeals Court Judges and Supreme Court Justices. I challenge the notion that republicans are in some way opposed to the status quo of family court sexism. I can see where you'd get the idea, but is there any actual proof? Where are the Republican dominated states where family court is fair to men? Kansas is one. The Kansas state AG has challenged several federal CS mandates in the federal judicial system. "Challenged several federal CS mandates" is nice. Would you say that Kansas family court is fair to men? I believe Mike Cox's political affiliation is Republican, no? Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from... Republican rhetoric certainly seems more in favor of men's rights... But I don't actually see Republicans treating the issue in a concrete way any more seriously then Democrats. The sad fact is that the C$ game puts money into Republican pockets too. That they blame liberal Democrats while stuffing their pockets does not impress me much. I think you know this, but I'll restate the historic record. It was Congressional action by the Democrats that got us to where we are today. It was Democrats, led by Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, who tried to convince other members of Congress there was a "perceived connection" between fathers abandoning children and increased growth in welfare spending. Few Senators agreed. But political maneuvering in Congress allowed the idea of federal involvement in CS to be attached to other social services bills that had broader appeal and support. Upon signing the legislation in 1975 President Ford said the CS provision injected the federal government too far into family law and called on Congress to correct the defects. Congress never corrected the issues Ford raised. The Democrat controlled Congress finally acted in 1984 by expanding the powers and size of the federal OCSE based on the reasoning deadbeat fathers were America's number one problem. President Reagan could have vetoed the bill, but at the time he did not have enough Republican votes in Congress to sustain a veto and he would have been overridden by the Democrat Congress. During the Clinton years the federal powers over CS were expanded further. Administration delegates to the Hague Conference caved in 1995, and told foreign governments federal involvement in CS matters would be expanded. President Clinton used his bully pulpit to "sell" expanding federal involvement in CS to the American public as more welfare reform. The current CS system we all suffer through today is the result of Democrats flexing their muscles in Congress and Republicans not being able to stop them. BTW - The most father-friendly party is the Libertarians. The most FREEDOM friendly party is the Libertarian party; the ONLY party I ever registered with. At the last presidential election, the Libertarians had a portion of their platform devoted to fathers and father's rights. Alan Keyes is also against the "Child $upport" system. Too bad he didn't win! More of the truth: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050402 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines in Need of Reform | Editor -- Child Support News | Child Support | 3 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines in Need of Reform | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | June 30th 04 12:28 AM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |
Chlid support before the guidelines | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 3 | November 2nd 03 04:34 PM |