advice for child support

"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.

"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.
===
===

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 ^*^

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 ^*^

"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.

"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