Lifestyle Support

Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

Lecher9000 wrote:

Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
receive it?

The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.

The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.

Lecher9000 wrote:

Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
receive it?

The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.

The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.

Lecher9000 wrote:
Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is
losing a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young
adult sue the government for financial support, citing the fact that
since the government made sure their father paid to maintain a
certain level of lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a
"good and just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay
it. Shows how easy it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is
always in favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

I could see it now. A kid , age 25, raised to be spoiled and lazy as
hell, loses their partents due to early death. They don't want to
work, so they sue the government claiming "When my parents divirced you
(the government) said that I was **ENTITLED** to live the lifestyle
that I had become accustomed to. No one else is willing or able to
provide it for me, so now you have to."

I know it'll probably never happen, but there are plenty of weird
lawsuits.

Lecher9000 wrote:
Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is
losing a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young
adult sue the government for financial support, citing the fact that
since the government made sure their father paid to maintain a
certain level of lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a
"good and just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay
it. Shows how easy it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is
always in favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

I could see it now. A kid , age 25, raised to be spoiled and lazy as
hell, loses their partents due to early death. They don't want to
work, so they sue the government claiming "When my parents divirced you
(the government) said that I was **ENTITLED** to live the lifestyle
that I had become accustomed to. No one else is willing or able to
provide it for me, so now you have to."

I know it'll probably never happen, but there are plenty of weird
lawsuits.

In article , Kenneth S. says...

Lecher9000 wrote:

Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
receive it?

The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.

The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
====
Don't forget that there are a significant number of women supporters among your
ranks and they are not all second wives. My concern is partly (maybe even most
significantly) drawn from the perspective of a mother of many boys. However,
anyone who has been around here for a while knows as well, that there is a
substantial percentage of men who are "non-supporters." The gender lines aren't
so cleanly drawn--It is simply not a situation of men v. women.
===
===

In article , Kenneth S. says...

Lecher9000 wrote:

Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
receive it?

The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.

The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
====
Don't forget that there are a significant number of women supporters among your
ranks and they are not all second wives. My concern is partly (maybe even most
significantly) drawn from the perspective of a mother of many boys. However,
anyone who has been around here for a while knows as well, that there is a
substantial percentage of men who are "non-supporters." The gender lines aren't
so cleanly drawn--It is simply not a situation of men v. women.
===
===

"Kenneth S." wrote in message ...
Lecher9000 wrote:

Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
receive it?

The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.

The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.

So, Kenneth, do you think the masculinist movement will be more fair
than the feminist movement has been?