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 |
#1431
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "?-?" wrote in message . com... "teachrmama" wrote in Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other children were irrelevant. Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the country. How does this work? I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that the almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the courts would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay. When are you going to accept that not only are subsequent children irrelevant in CS cases for prior children, but subsequemnt wives/husbands are, too? Unless you think that when the CP has more children, the CS should go up? Even when the "subsequent" children come along first. If a couple have a support order and have more children, you can bet the C$ WILL go up otherwise, it's not HIS child so would be uninvolved in the money side. It has nothing to DO with children; it's simply options the weak latch onto as a means to leech money. Phil #3 |
#1432
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "?-?" wrote in message . com... "teachrmama" wrote in Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other children were irrelevant. Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the country. How does this work? I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that the almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the courts would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay. When are you going to accept that not only are subsequent children irrelevant in CS cases for prior children, but subsequemnt wives/husbands are, too? Subsequent children are relevant when the CP has a second child with the same father. The subsequent child gets a lower CS amount than the first child. But the baby whelpers who have multiple children with multiple fathers get each case treated in a vacuum. This allows them to collect "first child" CS money multiple times. Three children with three different men pays more than three children with the same man. Unless you think that when the CP has more children, the CS should go up? It already does go up. What is your point? |
#1433
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Bob Whiteside" wrote ..................................... But the baby whelpers who have multiple children with multiple fathers get each case treated in a vacuum. This allows them to collect "first child" CS money multiple times. Three children with three different men pays more than three children with the same man. == Now you tell me. Damn. |
#1434
|
|||
|
|||
Marg discovers merit
"PolishKnight" wrote in message ups.com... This is an old post, but with so much juicy stuff: You must be terminally (one can only hope), bored to pull up an old post. CWQ pandora wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message try to shame them, and claim men have been marginalized to get them to shut up so the femwits don't have to hear what men have to say. We hear you, we just point and laugh when you say stupid things. This is how feminists act when they _believe_ they have power: As arrogant and dimissive as they claimed the evil patriarchs treated women. Of course, the second the "good" patriarchs stop chivalrously protecting them, that's the end of such arrogance. Obviously, you're either too stupid to get it OR just don't wish to admit that the status of women has changed. Don't worry about it, women will continue to do that which they wish to and those like yourself will be left behind. Which ties into: Affirmative action was only a stop gap measure to deal with such as yourself; those with prejudices, and to force them to comply with the laws. Most comply these days and so, affirmative action isn't needed to the same extent. So you admit that women will always need training wheels to deal with their shortcomings or boogymen under the bed. Apparently, the sexist men are able to stick around without special programs. Think about it: while career women are always just one program short of stability the sexist men will _always_ be with us ready to put them back into the kitchen at a moment's notice. It wasn't special rights at all but rather opportunities that had been denied them heretofore and to achieve equality. It was the agenda of such as you that made AA necessary in the first place. Stuff it boyo. Gee, plenty of such sexist men came to the states and were denied opportunities including Catholics and Chinese men and they ultimately became successful. Oh, wait, they didn't need handholding lest they run back to the kitchen. Nevermind. That pity party may have worked in the past but it's quickly becoming tired and old as these women find it more difficult to blame boogymen for their failures. What then? Maybe blame space aliens next for women's inability to compete with men without special programs. :-) Are you telling me that you actually believe that men/fathers do half the child rearing in our society? Guys have a long way to go before they can state that with any honesty and until they are actually DOING half, they won't be getting half custody. Gee, that might also explain why men were more successfull and earned more than women: They did the actual work. They don't hand out nobel prizes for squeezing out babies and staying home with them all day. Now, suddenly, Marg has discovered MERIT: When she sees that women are doing some work. Suddenly, she doesn't buy into victim handouts when most of the pity recipients would be men. So here are some clues to the source of your deep anger towards men. I have no anger toward men at all. Sure you do. If you didn't have anger, then you'd have to acknowledge that men are actually your protecters and benefactors rather than oppressors. Biting the hand that has fed you has let you feel more important, so far. Fortunately, you'll live to see that change. You felt used for helping your husband get ahead. Nope. It was MY choice to do so as we couldn't be together any other way. MY salary was necessary in order for us to live/eat/etc, and I cared about him getting his degree. It was for both of us that he did so and I was quite willing to pull my weight. Yikes, I hate to agree with Marg here but she did live out the _traditional_ life and worked for a small while long enough to cash in on her husband's career and that's how it's been ever since. In fact, most feminists are products either of traditionalism and take it for granted OR women such as Parg who are angry that they actually had to work for a living and pay the bills. Maybe if you had been stuck working and paying the bills without an evil man around to support you then maybe you might have been a little more grateful when one came along. You felt subservient for being a SAH mom. Nope. Again, it was a matter of choice (you do know what CHOICE is, don't you, well maybe not), to do such as my salary was the lower one and in those days, daycares wouldn't take infants. At least not around here where we live. Indeed: Such as the choice for women for millennia to raise children and have men EARN workplace credit and pay the bills. This choice explains women's "lack of opportunities" moreso than evil sexists hiding under the bed. |
#1435
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "?-?" wrote in message . com... "teachrmama" wrote in Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other children were irrelevant. Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the country. How does this work? I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that the almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the courts would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay. When are you going to accept that not only are subsequent children irrelevant in CS cases for prior children, but subsequemnt wives/husbands are, too? Unless you think that when the CP has more children, the CS should go up? What on earth are you talking about, Moon? |
#1436
|
|||
|
|||
Marg discovers merit
I glanced at it some time ago and thought about a response. Take it as
a compliment: I found the notion of you claiming that powerless sexist chumps required massive government programs to protect empowered women to be rather thought provoking. regards, PolishKnight In article , "pandora" wrote: "PolishKnight" wrote in message ups.com... This is an old post, but with so much juicy stuff: You must be terminally (one can only hope), bored to pull up an old post. CWQ pandora wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message try to shame them, and claim men have been marginalized to get them to shut up so the femwits don't have to hear what men have to say. We hear you, we just point and laugh when you say stupid things. This is how feminists act when they _believe_ they have power: As arrogant and dimissive as they claimed the evil patriarchs treated women. Of course, the second the "good" patriarchs stop chivalrously protecting them, that's the end of such arrogance. Obviously, you're either too stupid to get it OR just don't wish to admit that the status of women has changed. Don't worry about it, women will continue to do that which they wish to and those like yourself will be left behind. Which ties into: Affirmative action was only a stop gap measure to deal with such as yourself; those with prejudices, and to force them to comply with the laws. Most comply these days and so, affirmative action isn't needed to the same extent. So you admit that women will always need training wheels to deal with their shortcomings or boogymen under the bed. Apparently, the sexist men are able to stick around without special programs. Think about it: while career women are always just one program short of stability the sexist men will _always_ be with us ready to put them back into the kitchen at a moment's notice. It wasn't special rights at all but rather opportunities that had been denied them heretofore and to achieve equality. It was the agenda of such as you that made AA necessary in the first place. Stuff it boyo. Gee, plenty of such sexist men came to the states and were denied opportunities including Catholics and Chinese men and they ultimately became successful. Oh, wait, they didn't need handholding lest they run back to the kitchen. Nevermind. That pity party may have worked in the past but it's quickly becoming tired and old as these women find it more difficult to blame boogymen for their failures. What then? Maybe blame space aliens next for women's inability to compete with men without special programs. :-) Are you telling me that you actually believe that men/fathers do half the child rearing in our society? Guys have a long way to go before they can state that with any honesty and until they are actually DOING half, they won't be getting half custody. Gee, that might also explain why men were more successfull and earned more than women: They did the actual work. They don't hand out nobel prizes for squeezing out babies and staying home with them all day. Now, suddenly, Marg has discovered MERIT: When she sees that women are doing some work. Suddenly, she doesn't buy into victim handouts when most of the pity recipients would be men. So here are some clues to the source of your deep anger towards men. I have no anger toward men at all. Sure you do. If you didn't have anger, then you'd have to acknowledge that men are actually your protecters and benefactors rather than oppressors. Biting the hand that has fed you has let you feel more important, so far. Fortunately, you'll live to see that change. You felt used for helping your husband get ahead. Nope. It was MY choice to do so as we couldn't be together any other way. MY salary was necessary in order for us to live/eat/etc, and I cared about him getting his degree. It was for both of us that he did so and I was quite willing to pull my weight. Yikes, I hate to agree with Marg here but she did live out the _traditional_ life and worked for a small while long enough to cash in on her husband's career and that's how it's been ever since. In fact, most feminists are products either of traditionalism and take it for granted OR women such as Parg who are angry that they actually had to work for a living and pay the bills. Maybe if you had been stuck working and paying the bills without an evil man around to support you then maybe you might have been a little more grateful when one came along. You felt subservient for being a SAH mom. Nope. Again, it was a matter of choice (you do know what CHOICE is, don't you, well maybe not), to do such as my salary was the lower one and in those days, daycares wouldn't take infants. At least not around here where we live. Indeed: Such as the choice for women for millennia to raise children and have men EARN workplace credit and pay the bills. This choice explains women's "lack of opportunities" moreso than evil sexists hiding under the bed. |
#1437
|
|||
|
|||
Marg discovers merit
"PolishKnight" wrote in message news:marek1-646C65.17453522102006@news... I glanced at it some time ago and thought about a response. Take it as a compliment: I found the notion of you claiming that powerless sexist chumps required massive government programs to protect empowered women to be rather thought provoking. And I find nothing thought provoking about you in any way/shape/form. You are quite insane. CWQ regards, PolishKnight In article , "pandora" wrote: "PolishKnight" wrote in message ups.com... This is an old post, but with so much juicy stuff: You must be terminally (one can only hope), bored to pull up an old post. CWQ pandora wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message try to shame them, and claim men have been marginalized to get them to shut up so the femwits don't have to hear what men have to say. We hear you, we just point and laugh when you say stupid things. This is how feminists act when they _believe_ they have power: As arrogant and dimissive as they claimed the evil patriarchs treated women. Of course, the second the "good" patriarchs stop chivalrously protecting them, that's the end of such arrogance. Obviously, you're either too stupid to get it OR just don't wish to admit that the status of women has changed. Don't worry about it, women will continue to do that which they wish to and those like yourself will be left behind. Which ties into: Affirmative action was only a stop gap measure to deal with such as yourself; those with prejudices, and to force them to comply with the laws. Most comply these days and so, affirmative action isn't needed to the same extent. So you admit that women will always need training wheels to deal with their shortcomings or boogymen under the bed. Apparently, the sexist men are able to stick around without special programs. Think about it: while career women are always just one program short of stability the sexist men will _always_ be with us ready to put them back into the kitchen at a moment's notice. It wasn't special rights at all but rather opportunities that had been denied them heretofore and to achieve equality. It was the agenda of such as you that made AA necessary in the first place. Stuff it boyo. Gee, plenty of such sexist men came to the states and were denied opportunities including Catholics and Chinese men and they ultimately became successful. Oh, wait, they didn't need handholding lest they run back to the kitchen. Nevermind. That pity party may have worked in the past but it's quickly becoming tired and old as these women find it more difficult to blame boogymen for their failures. What then? Maybe blame space aliens next for women's inability to compete with men without special programs. :-) Are you telling me that you actually believe that men/fathers do half the child rearing in our society? Guys have a long way to go before they can state that with any honesty and until they are actually DOING half, they won't be getting half custody. Gee, that might also explain why men were more successfull and earned more than women: They did the actual work. They don't hand out nobel prizes for squeezing out babies and staying home with them all day. Now, suddenly, Marg has discovered MERIT: When she sees that women are doing some work. Suddenly, she doesn't buy into victim handouts when most of the pity recipients would be men. So here are some clues to the source of your deep anger towards men. I have no anger toward men at all. Sure you do. If you didn't have anger, then you'd have to acknowledge that men are actually your protecters and benefactors rather than oppressors. Biting the hand that has fed you has let you feel more important, so far. Fortunately, you'll live to see that change. You felt used for helping your husband get ahead. Nope. It was MY choice to do so as we couldn't be together any other way. MY salary was necessary in order for us to live/eat/etc, and I cared about him getting his degree. It was for both of us that he did so and I was quite willing to pull my weight. Yikes, I hate to agree with Marg here but she did live out the _traditional_ life and worked for a small while long enough to cash in on her husband's career and that's how it's been ever since. In fact, most feminists are products either of traditionalism and take it for granted OR women such as Parg who are angry that they actually had to work for a living and pay the bills. Maybe if you had been stuck working and paying the bills without an evil man around to support you then maybe you might have been a little more grateful when one came along. You felt subservient for being a SAH mom. Nope. Again, it was a matter of choice (you do know what CHOICE is, don't you, well maybe not), to do such as my salary was the lower one and in those days, daycares wouldn't take infants. At least not around here where we live. Indeed: Such as the choice for women for millennia to raise children and have men EARN workplace credit and pay the bills. This choice explains women's "lack of opportunities" moreso than evil sexists hiding under the bed. |
#1438
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "?-?" wrote in message . com... "teachrmama" wrote in Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other children were irrelevant. Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the country. How does this work? I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that the almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the courts would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay. It's very ironic that I have one government agency telling me I have to pay money to supprt a child in need, and another government agency saying the child doesn't need the money. |
#1439
|
|||
|
|||
Marg discovers merit
"pandora" wrote in message news:F6idnTFvos72jaHYnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "PolishKnight" wrote in message news:marek1-646C65.17453522102006@news... I glanced at it some time ago and thought about a response. Take it as a compliment: I found the notion of you claiming that powerless sexist chumps required massive government programs to protect empowered women to be rather thought provoking. And I find nothing thought provoking You need a brain first ) |
#1440
|
|||
|
|||
Marg discovers merit
pandora wrote: "PolishKnight" wrote in message news:marek1-646C65.17453522102006@news... I glanced at it some time ago and thought about a response. Take it as a compliment: I found the notion of you claiming that powerless sexist chumps required massive government programs to protect empowered women to be rather thought provoking. And I find nothing thought provoking about you in any way/shape/form. You are quite insane. Mark 1, Marg 0 Don't worry Marg, you got soundly outdebated and I enjoyed every word of it. ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | March 8th 06 07:45 AM |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 01:49 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 02:35 AM |