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 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... I notice that you did not respond to my answer to your question. I can only assume that it did not come through to your server, so I am reposting it for you: Moon: Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one? TM: I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar circumstance, demand that money? Moon: I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. TM: Are you saying that choosing to drink even though you know that taking that first drink will cause a flare-ip of your disease is the same as being sent to prison for a crime you didn't commit? Alcoholism can be controlled--just don't drink. It's a disease - a really ****ty one. I didn't say it was the same as being jailed, except that both can land a person in a position where they are unable to support their families. Diabetes is a disease--a really ****ty one. But millions of people control it by proper diest, exercise, use of insulin, etc. They do not use it as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. High blood pressure is a disease--a really ****ty one. But millions of people deal with it by diet, exercise, proper diet and medication. They do not use it as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. Perhaps alcoholism, too, is a disease. But millions of people control it by not drinking (one day at a time). They do not use it as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. Being in jail for a crime you did not commit is not a disease, and cannot be controlled by the person who experiences it. They are unable to meet what would be their responsibilities were they not unfairly incarcerated. And, Moon, there is a huge difference between being unable to support your family (such as being locked up in jail) and being unwilling to do so, knowing that if you don't haul your butt out of bed and go to work, someone else will step in and provide for both you and the children you bring into the world. A huge difference. One is out of your control--and one is choice. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you on that last one. What part do you disagree with? The part about a mother who refuses to haul her butt out of bed because she knows she and her children will be supported any way? I disagree that you can claim to know someone else's motivations. Ah, but I notice you don't disagree with the fact that, if she doesn't haul her butt out of bed, she and her children will be cared for anyway. I don't know that for fact - actually, all anyone has is your statement that this is so. Or the part about the person locked up in jail being unable to support his family? Or the part about taking that first drink being a choice? Most certainly I disagree with this part. That first drink can be a trigger to the disease - one that they may well not have known they were going to suffer from. Not the first drink they ever took!! The first drink each and every time they go on a bender! Do you think that once an alcoholic drinks they are incapable ever after of refraining from drinking? If so, you are very, very wrong! There are millions of alcoholics who refrain from drinking one day at a time! Just as other diseases can be kept under control by following certain regimens, so, also, can alcoholism. There are drinking alcoholics and alcoholics who have made the choice to stop drinking. Many, many of them have been sober for years--even decades. The fact that they have the disease of alcoholism does not stop them from holding jobs, supporting their families and living life sober. Having the disease may not be a choice--but drinking *is* a choice. Well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... I notice that you did not respond to my answer to your question. I can only assume that it did not come through to your server, so I am reposting it for you: Moon: Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one? TM: I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar circumstance, demand that money? Moon: I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. TM: Are you saying that choosing to drink even though you know that taking that first drink will cause a flare-ip of your disease is the same as being sent to prison for a crime you didn't commit? Alcoholism can be controlled--just don't drink. It's a disease - a really ****ty one. I didn't say it was the same as being jailed, except that both can land a person in a position where they are unable to support their families. Diabetes is a disease--a really ****ty one. But millions of people control it by proper diest, exercise, use of insulin, etc. They do not use it as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. High blood pressure is a disease--a really ****ty one. But millions of people deal with it by diet, exercise, proper diet and medication. They do not use it as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. Perhaps alcoholism, too, is a disease. But millions of people control it by not drinking (one day at a time). They do not use it as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. Being in jail for a crime you did not commit is not a disease, and cannot be controlled by the person who experiences it. They are unable to meet what would be their responsibilities were they not unfairly incarcerated. And, Moon, there is a huge difference between being unable to support your family (such as being locked up in jail) and being unwilling to do so, knowing that if you don't haul your butt out of bed and go to work, someone else will step in and provide for both you and the children you bring into the world. A huge difference. One is out of your control--and one is choice. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you on that last one. What part do you disagree with? The part about a mother who refuses to haul her butt out of bed because she knows she and her children will be supported any way? I disagree that you can claim to know someone else's motivations. Ah, but I notice you don't disagree with the fact that, if she doesn't haul her butt out of bed, she and her children will be cared for anyway. I don't know that for fact - actually, all anyone has is your statement that this is so. Or the part about the person locked up in jail being unable to support his family? Or the part about taking that first drink being a choice? Most certainly I disagree with this part. That first drink can be a trigger to the disease - one that they may well not have known they were going to suffer from. Not the first drink they ever took!! The first drink each and every time they go on a bender! Do you think that once an alcoholic drinks they are incapable ever after of refraining from drinking? If so, you are very, very wrong! There are millions of alcoholics who refrain from drinking one day at a time! Just as other diseases can be kept under control by following certain regimens, so, also, can alcoholism. There are drinking alcoholics and alcoholics who have made the choice to stop drinking. Many, many of them have been sober for years--even decades. The fact that they have the disease of alcoholism does not stop them from holding jobs, supporting their families and living life sober. Having the disease may not be a choice--but drinking *is* a choice. Well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. About what? About the fact that there are millions of alcoholics that do not indulge themselves by taking that first drink and causing a flare-up of their disease? Because that is fact, Moon, not opinion. Once they accepted their alcoholism, they stopped drinking, and continue to not drink. Some of them lost everything they had--jobs, families, homes--before they quit. But they did quit. That drinking is a choice? IT IS! Whether you like it or not. Otherwise these alcoholics who have chosen not to drink would not be able to stop! Or are you saying that anyone who can choose to stop drinking is really not an alcoholic? |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip And, Moon, there is a huge difference between being unable to support your family (such as being locked up in jail) and being unwilling to do so, knowing that if you don't haul your butt out of bed and go to work, someone else will step in and provide for both you and the children you bring into the world. A huge difference. One is out of your control--and one is choice. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you on that last one. What part do you disagree with? The part about a mother who refuses to haul her butt out of bed because she knows she and her children will be supported any way? I disagree that you can claim to know someone else's motivations. Ah, but I notice you don't disagree with the fact that, if she doesn't haul her butt out of bed, she and her children will be cared for anyway. I don't know that for fact - actually, all anyone has is your statement that this is so. You think I am talking about just one person? chuckle I am talking about a system that, in its zeal to "protect" children also supports the mothers of those children, giving them the option not to work if they don't want to--because the children must always be cared for. The one you think I am referring to, btw, is third generation trough-swiller, and raising her kids in the same proud tradition. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
... [snip] Oh, plah-eeez!! You wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up, bit you on the nose and dangled there for a month. Ok, and apparently you are incapable of having a discussion without the gratuitous insults. Only if you ask real nice. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
... [Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped] Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here are the facts as they've been presented to us.. 1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit. 2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder. 3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of murder. 4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and imprisonment for 13 years), his C$ arrears mounts to astronomical levels ($38,000). 5. He attempts to have his C$ lowered, or stopped after he learns of it. The state refuses to allow him to do so. 6. After 13 years of imprisonment, the guy is found innocent (witness came forward) and is released. 7. The state hands him a bill for $38,000 in C$ for the time they kept him in prison and could make payments (remember, the state also said that they wouldn't allow him to have his C$ lowered while they kept an innocent man locked up, too). So Moon, please explain to us how being arrested for a crime he didn't commit, spending 13 years in jail (unable to pay $100 a week in C$, plus interest, fees and penalties), being cut-off from his children, lose of his job, lose of his home, lose of his belongings and car, is all the guys fault? From the news story, he certainly didn't act in a "willful" manner. That is to say, he didn't willfully refuse to pay his C$. He didn't walk away from his job on his own. He didn't deliberately leave his kids without a father and abandon them for 13 years. In a word, it wasn't his fault. Yet you want to crucify him for not paying a debt. A debt, I might add, that was impossible for him to pay during the time the state had him in their custody. And a debt, that once he learned of it's continuing to accrue, he attempted to have stopped. Yet the state refused to allow it to be stopped. So, please, tell us how this is his fault? I'd love it if you could explain it to us. And please, don't be confusing and use words even you don't know the meaning to (that you so masterfully demonstrated in a recent posting), like "picayune".. Oh yeah, one more thing.. leave the alcohol at home this time. Confusing the issue by stating that alcoholism is as bad, or even worse, then not paying C$ while in jail for a crime you didn't commit is just plain wrong. And it clouds the real issue. Please, tell us how it's his fault. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped] Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here are the facts as they've been presented to us.. 1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit. 2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder. 3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of murder. 4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and imprisonment for 13 years), his C$ arrears mounts to astronomical levels ($38,000). 5. He attempts to have his C$ lowered, or stopped after he learns of it. The state refuses to allow him to do so. 6. After 13 years of imprisonment, the guy is found innocent (witness came forward) and is released. 7. The state hands him a bill for $38,000 in C$ for the time they kept him in prison and could make payments (remember, the state also said that they wouldn't allow him to have his C$ lowered while they kept an innocent man locked up, too). So Moon, please explain to us how being arrested for a crime he didn't commit, spending 13 years in jail (unable to pay $100 a week in C$, plus interest, fees and penalties), being cut-off from his children, lose of his job, lose of his home, lose of his belongings and car, is all the guys fault? I didn't say it was all the guy's fault. I said the ex-wife had every right to pursue the child support that wasn't paid towards the support of her children. From the news story, he certainly didn't act in a "willful" manner. That is to say, he didn't willfully refuse to pay his C$. He didn't walk away from his job on his own. He didn't deliberately leave his kids without a father and abandon them for 13 years. In a word, it wasn't his fault. Yet you want to crucify him for not paying a debt. Um, no. All I have said, all along, is that the custodial parent of the children had every right to legally pursue the child support. A debt, I might add, that was impossible for him to pay during the time the state had him in their custody. And a debt, that once he learned of it's continuing to accrue, he attempted to have stopped. Yet the state refused to allow it to be stopped. Well, that's not quite true - apparently, he DID had the support obligation lowered/stopped at some point. So, please, tell us how this is his fault? I dunno, I never said it was his fault. I'd love it if you could explain it to us. And please, don't be confusing and use words even you don't know the meaning to (that you so masterfully demonstrated in a recent posting), like "picayune".. Oh yeah, one more thing.. leave the alcohol at home this time. Not a problem - there isn't any in my home :-) Confusing the issue by stating that alcoholism is as bad, or even worse, then not paying C$ while in jail for a crime you didn't commit is just plain wrong. Which, of course, isn't something I said, either. And it clouds the real issue. Please, tell us how it's his fault. I dunno - I never claimed it was. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... I notice that you did not respond to my answer to your question. I can only assume that it did not come through to your server, so I am reposting it for you: Moon: Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one? TM: I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar circumstance, demand that money? Moon: I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. TM: Are you saying that choosing to drink even though you know that taking that first drink will cause a flare-ip of your disease is the same as being sent to prison for a crime you didn't commit? Alcoholism can be controlled--just don't drink. It's a disease - a really ****ty one. I didn't say it was the same as being jailed, except that both can land a person in a position where they are unable to support their families. Diabetes is a disease--a really ****ty one. But millions of people control it by proper diest, exercise, use of insulin, etc. They do not use it as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. High blood pressure is a disease--a really ****ty one. But millions of people deal with it by diet, exercise, proper diet and medication. They do not use it as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. Perhaps alcoholism, too, is a disease. But millions of people control it by not drinking (one day at a time). They do not use it as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. Being in jail for a crime you did not commit is not a disease, and cannot be controlled by the person who experiences it. They are unable to meet what would be their responsibilities were they not unfairly incarcerated. And, Moon, there is a huge difference between being unable to support your family (such as being locked up in jail) and being unwilling to do so, knowing that if you don't haul your butt out of bed and go to work, someone else will step in and provide for both you and the children you bring into the world. A huge difference. One is out of your control--and one is choice. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you on that last one. What part do you disagree with? The part about a mother who refuses to haul her butt out of bed because she knows she and her children will be supported any way? I disagree that you can claim to know someone else's motivations. Ah, but I notice you don't disagree with the fact that, if she doesn't haul her butt out of bed, she and her children will be cared for anyway. I don't know that for fact - actually, all anyone has is your statement that this is so. Or the part about the person locked up in jail being unable to support his family? Or the part about taking that first drink being a choice? Most certainly I disagree with this part. That first drink can be a trigger to the disease - one that they may well not have known they were going to suffer from. Not the first drink they ever took!! The first drink each and every time they go on a bender! Do you think that once an alcoholic drinks they are incapable ever after of refraining from drinking? If so, you are very, very wrong! There are millions of alcoholics who refrain from drinking one day at a time! Just as other diseases can be kept under control by following certain regimens, so, also, can alcoholism. There are drinking alcoholics and alcoholics who have made the choice to stop drinking. Many, many of them have been sober for years--even decades. The fact that they have the disease of alcoholism does not stop them from holding jobs, supporting their families and living life sober. Having the disease may not be a choice--but drinking *is* a choice. Well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. About what? About the fact that there are millions of alcoholics that do not indulge themselves by taking that first drink and causing a flare-up of their disease? Because that is fact, Moon, not opinion. Once they accepted their alcoholism, they stopped drinking, and continue to not drink. Some of them lost everything they had--jobs, families, homes--before they quit. But they did quit. Ok - so you can only accept it as a disease once they have gotten it into remission/under control? Do you hold the same attitude towards people with cancer, heart disease or diabetes? If they don't have it under strict control, they earn your scorn? That drinking is a choice? IT IS! Whether you like it or not. Otherwise these alcoholics who have chosen not to drink would not be able to stop! Or are you saying that anyone who can choose to stop drinking is really not an alcoholic? I'm pretty sure I never said any such thing. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
Werebat wrote: Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:ilGGf.79261$QW2.58943@dukeread08... Moon Shyne wrote: "Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease No it's not; it's a choice. It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract You can certainly make a case that the proclivity to overindulge is not something that a person chooses. Just like you can make a case that the proclivity to engage in sex with children is not something that an adult chooses. I'd agree that we should give alcoholic women and men who ruin their own lives and the lives of others around them exactly the same sort of compassion that we give to child molesters who do the same thing. You would. Ad hominem and a buck with get you an ice bream bar and the gas station. Ugh. That should be "Ad hominem and a buck will get you an ice cream bar at the gas station." I shouldn't post while tired. The point remains, though. You have no argument against my assertion. - Ron ^*^ |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped] Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here are the facts as they've been presented to us.. 1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit. 2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder. 3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of murder. 4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and imprisonment for 13 years), his C$ arrears mounts to astronomical levels ($38,000). 5. He attempts to have his C$ lowered, or stopped after he learns of it. The state refuses to allow him to do so. 6. After 13 years of imprisonment, the guy is found innocent (witness came forward) and is released. 7. The state hands him a bill for $38,000 in C$ for the time they kept him in prison and could make payments (remember, the state also said that they wouldn't allow him to have his C$ lowered while they kept an innocent man locked up, too). So Moon, please explain to us how being arrested for a crime he didn't commit, spending 13 years in jail (unable to pay $100 a week in C$, plus interest, fees and penalties), being cut-off from his children, lose of his job, lose of his home, lose of his belongings and car, is all the guys fault? I didn't say it was all the guy's fault. Moon, since about day one of this thread you've done nothing but infer over and over and over again that Souter is to blame for the trouble that the state caused him. I really wish you'd stop being a mindless boob and just face facts - the state screwed up, not Souter. Your argument just doesn't hold water. I said the ex-wife had every right to pursue the child support that wasn't paid towards the support of her children. For once, you're right. You did indeed state that. From the news story, he certainly didn't act in a "willful" manner. That is to say, he didn't willfully refuse to pay his C$. He didn't walk away from his job on his own. He didn't deliberately leave his kids without a father and abandon them for 13 years. In a word, it wasn't his fault. Yet you want to crucify him for not paying a debt. Um, no. All I have said, all along, is that the custodial parent of the children had every right to legally pursue the child support. Bull. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... .. That first drink can be a trigger to the disease - one that they may well not have known they were going to suffer from. Not the first drink they ever took!! The first drink each and every time they go on a bender! Do you think that once an alcoholic drinks they are incapable ever after of refraining from drinking? If so, you are very, very wrong! There are millions of alcoholics who refrain from drinking one day at a time! Just as other diseases can be kept under control by following certain regimens, so, also, can alcoholism. There are drinking alcoholics and alcoholics who have made the choice to stop drinking. Many, many of them have been sober for years--even decades. The fact that they have the disease of alcoholism does not stop them from holding jobs, supporting their families and living life sober. Having the disease may not be a choice--but drinking *is* a choice. Well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. About what? About the fact that there are millions of alcoholics that do not indulge themselves by taking that first drink and causing a flare-up of their disease? Because that is fact, Moon, not opinion. Once they accepted their alcoholism, they stopped drinking, and continue to not drink. Some of them lost everything they had--jobs, families, homes--before they quit. But they did quit. Ok - so you can only accept it as a disease once they have gotten it into remission/under control? Do you hold the same attitude towards people with cancer, heart disease or diabetes? If they don't have it under strict control, they earn your scorn? If they continue to live on public moneys (money I and other tax payers work hard to earn), have child after child that they cannot support, spend money paid for the support of their children to feed their "disease" and NEVER change their choices then, yes, they have earned my scorn, Moon. Those that make the effort to secure jobs, but still have occasional slips, are at least trying. But those that never even apply for jobs, just sit on their fannies with their mouths open for Big Daddy Gubmint to drop in the sweat-soaked $$ of the American taxpayer--no sympathy from me. That drinking is a choice? IT IS! Whether you like it or not. Otherwise these alcoholics who have chosen not to drink would not be able to stop! Or are you saying that anyone who can choose to stop drinking is really not an alcoholic? I'm pretty sure I never said any such thing. So you agree that drinking is a choice? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A dentist's child abuse crime (also: Pregnant citizens: URGENT) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | September 7th 05 11:00 PM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 04:47 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 03:30 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 05:27 AM |