deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you on this point. It was absolutely ridiculous
to force everyone into the system, when the vast majority would have
been able to work things out themselves. The incentives should be
removed, 50/50 joint custody should be the default, and child support,
when needed, should cover basic needs--NOT lifestyle! But there still
needs to be a system in place for the 3% who refuse to acknowledge any
responsibility at all.

Given that the majority of the 3% are down and out, the government has
means to garnish assets from people with real income, but again if the
system were fair, there would be little motive to avoid helping your own
children.

The CS system is not the solution, it's the problem!

As it stands now, you are right. We do need to be able to hole people
responsible. Just not the way it is being done now.

The system is 100% ineffective at holding people to their responsibilities,
they ignore the very people they are supposed to impose on and take the easy
cases that are already paying and claim victories that are re not truly
earned.

The Collection industry is all about self preservation!

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"animal02" wrote in message
news:x5mdnckL4IHLXbTanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:xT%Vi.9924$%r.6843@trnddc01...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip


Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home
schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if
her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in
disbeleif
at
in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them
next
to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live
life
that
way?

You're RIGHT! So just agree with me. Wait a minute. Actually, I
should
be
agreeing with YOU on everything. How dumb of me.


It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

Even MORE unfortunate is the fact that you buy into such nonsense.
Oops,
did
I just express an opinion by using the word "unfortunate"?

Chris, your argument that men have no choice about whether or not a
child
is born and should therefore have no responsibility for the child
does
not help the cause of fatherr's rights--especially when you carry it
to
the ridiculous length of saying that a married man-- who, along with
his
wife-- planned for the child, should be able to walk away with no
responsibility should he ever tire of the marriage or family. This
sort
of attitude does NOT in any way help with the advancing of fatheers'
rights because it makes it seem that fathers are just looking to
shirk
any vestige of responsibility, rather than seeking to be parents to
their
children even when the mother and father are no longer together.
Your
view is just as radical as the mothers-only view you so detest!
It seems to me that the central issues here are individual
responsibility and equality.

No one ever seems to mention it in the mainstream media in the
U.S.,
but the vast majority of the single parent families that give rise to
child support are the result of unilateral decisions made by WOMEN.
In
these cases, current law and practice enables these women to impose
most
of the financial costs of such families on the fathers of their
children.
(Social and other costs are imposed on the children themselves and on
society as a whole.) This cannot be right.

For reasons of justice, as well as removal of incentives for
damaging
behavior, this situation should be changed. In the case of married
couples, the spouse who wants the breakup of the family should lose
custody of the children.

In the case of unmarried parents, so long as women have all kinds
of
post-conception reproductive choices, men should have their version
of
those choices. Men should have the legal right to disclaim
responsibility
for unwanted (to them) pregnancies. There can be no justification
for,
on
one side of the equation, giving women all kinds of "rights," while
on
the
other hand denying men the choice given to them by Mother
Nature--that
of
walking away from unwanted pregnancies.

There is every reason to think that, if these principles were
followed,
there would be a sharp drop in the number of single-parent families,
with
enormous benefits for children and for society at large.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not skewed in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child support"!



Nope, and is just further evidnece why you continue to fight a losing
battle.

I aint' fighting ANY battle. But feel free to support your false claim.

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you on this point. It was absolutely
ridiculous to force everyone into the system, when the vast majority
would have been able to work things out themselves. The incentives
should be removed, 50/50 joint custody should be the default, and child
support, when needed, should cover basic needs--NOT lifestyle! But
there still needs to be a system in place for the 3% who refuse to
acknowledge any responsibility at all.

Given that the majority of the 3% are down and out, the government has
means to garnish assets from people with real income, but again if the
system were fair, there would be little motive to avoid helping your own
children.

The CS system is not the solution, it's the problem!

As it stands now, you are right. We do need to be able to hole people
responsible. Just not the way it is being done now.

The system is 100% ineffective at holding people to their
responsibilities, they ignore the very people they are supposed to impose
on and take the easy cases that are already paying and claim victories
that are re not truly earned.

Absolutely--that's the only reason my family got caught up in it.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:xT%Vi.9924$%r.6843@trnddc01...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip


Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home
schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if
her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in
disbeleif
at
in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them
next
to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live
life
that
way?

You're RIGHT! So just agree with me. Wait a minute. Actually, I
should
be
agreeing with YOU on everything. How dumb of me.


It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

Even MORE unfortunate is the fact that you buy into such nonsense.
Oops,
did
I just express an opinion by using the word "unfortunate"?

Chris, your argument that men have no choice about whether or not a
child
is born and should therefore have no responsibility for the child
does
not help the cause of fatherr's rights--especially when you carry it
to
the ridiculous length of saying that a married man-- who, along with
his
wife-- planned for the child, should be able to walk away with no
responsibility should he ever tire of the marriage or family. This
sort
of attitude does NOT in any way help with the advancing of fatheers'
rights because it makes it seem that fathers are just looking to
shirk
any vestige of responsibility, rather than seeking to be parents to
their
children even when the mother and father are no longer together.
Your
view is just as radical as the mothers-only view you so detest!
It seems to me that the central issues here are individual
responsibility and equality.

No one ever seems to mention it in the mainstream media in the
U.S.,
but the vast majority of the single parent families that give rise to
child support are the result of unilateral decisions made by WOMEN.
In
these cases, current law and practice enables these women to impose
most
of the financial costs of such families on the fathers of their
children.
(Social and other costs are imposed on the children themselves and on
society as a whole.) This cannot be right.

For reasons of justice, as well as removal of incentives for
damaging
behavior, this situation should be changed. In the case of married
couples, the spouse who wants the breakup of the family should lose
custody of the children.

In the case of unmarried parents, so long as women have all kinds
of
post-conception reproductive choices, men should have their version
of
those choices. Men should have the legal right to disclaim
responsibility
for unwanted (to them) pregnancies. There can be no justification
for,
on
one side of the equation, giving women all kinds of "rights," while
on
the
other hand denying men the choice given to them by Mother
Nature--that
of
walking away from unwanted pregnancies.

There is every reason to think that, if these principles were
followed,
there would be a sharp drop in the number of single-parent families,
with
enormous benefits for children and for society at large.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not skewed in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child support"!

Not necessarily.

Fine. Keep your "child support" system, and things will NEVER change.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip


There is every reason to think that, if these principles were
followed,
there would be a sharp drop in the number of single-parent families,
with
enormous benefits for children and for society at large.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not skewed
in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child support"!

Not necessarily.

Fine. Keep your "child support" system, and things will NEVER change.

The question is not whether or not things need to change, Chris. It's what
you want them to change into.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"animal02" wrote in message
news:g7GdnYxF1J7VJrTanZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip


Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar, if her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in disbeleif at
in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them next
to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live life
that
way?

You're RIGHT! So just agree with me. Wait a minute. Actually, I should
be
agreeing with YOU on everything. How dumb of me.


It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

Even MORE unfortunate is the fact that you buy into such nonsense. Oops,
did
I just express an opinion by using the word "unfortunate"?

No, you just expressed your asinine stupidity

Well thank you for your opinion.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:tMGdnYbLlKxwUbvanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

snip


Unless you feel that school is optional.

School IS optional.

She is being educated in a traditional setting--not home
schooled.
Therefore her schedule is determined by the school calendar,
if
her
parents want her to be successful at school.

It is people like Chris that I used to shake my head in
disbeleif
at
in
court. The same judge that gve me 50/50 custody would give them
next
to
nothing because they were so disagreeable.

I can understand why. Everything is an argument. Who can live
life
that
way?

You're RIGHT! So just agree with me. Wait a minute. Actually, I
should
be
agreeing with YOU on everything. How dumb of me.


It is people like that who
hinder the progress of the father's rights groups.

Unfortunately.

Even MORE unfortunate is the fact that you buy into such nonsense.
Oops,
did
I just express an opinion by using the word "unfortunate"?

Chris, your argument that men have no choice about whether or not a
child
is
born and should therefore have no responsibility for the child does
not
help
the cause of fatherr's rights--especially when you carry it to the
ridiculous length of saying that a married man-- who, along with his
wife--
planned for the child, should be able to walk away with no
responsibility
should he ever tire of the marriage or family. This sort of
attitude
does
NOT in any way help with the advancing of fatheers' rights because
it
makes
it seem that fathers are just looking to shirk any vestige of
responsibility, rather than seeking to be parents to their children
even
when the mother and father are no longer together. Your view is
just
as
radical as the mothers-only view you so detest!

You say this only because you fail to see the larger picture.
Actually,
it
is the government people, not I, who place fathers in such position.
How?
When they say that fathers have no rights to children, they are ALSO
saying
that fathers have no responsibilities to children. It simply follows.

Actually, Chris, they DON'T say that. They may take away rights, but
they
expand the responsibilities.

I never claimed that they practice what they preach.

That's what needs to be changed. And being as
nasty, hateful, and uncooperative as they are only continues the
problem
and
solves nothing.

NONSENSE! Those characteristics (barring uncooperative) have absolutely
NOTHING to do with it. They have their evil agenda regardless of the
behavior of their opponents. The ONLY thing that continues the problem
created by them is THEIR choice to continue it....... period!

Being uncooperative will indeed postpone the solution to the problem. So
long as small battles (being uncooperative) ensue, society will never
arrive
at the breaking point. But rest-assured, when there is enough
cooperation,
the fever will finally break. And you know what? It's running pretty
high
right now.



Do I advocate fatherless families? Of course not! But neither do I
advocate
the whackjobs running the government to have thier cake and eat it
too.

Neither do I, Chris.


I will place my bet on the idea that when fathers are completely
eliminated
from the family (almost there now), the negative impact will be so
great
that society will be forced to wake up and realize what the
government
feminazis have done. Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom before
treatment
is finally sought.

Let's hope it does not get that far.

WHY? Do you want it resolved or not?

But let's also hope that we never get
to a point where men can actually walk away with no responsibilities
toward
the children they help create. That would be no better than the
situation
we have now--just easier on the wallets of men.

To put a man on the hook for some woman's sole choice is senseless. Your
term "help create" is a controversial feel good term designed to appeal
to
the emotions of weak-minded people.

Don't be ridiculous! Without your sperm, the child would not exist.

Your point?


If you think about it, the grandmother
also "helped create" the children.

Oh--I was not aware that your grandmother forcibly took your sperm and
gave
it to the woman, Chris. That is pretty gross. I'm glad I don't know your
grandmother.

Now that we're done with THAT red herring, are you ready to get back on
topic?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you on this point. It was absolutely
ridiculous
to force everyone into the system, when the vast majority would have
been able to work things out themselves. The incentives should be
removed, 50/50 joint custody should be the default, and child support,
when needed, should cover basic needs--NOT lifestyle! But there still
needs to be a system in place for the 3% who refuse to acknowledge any
responsibility at all.

Given that the majority of the 3% are down and out, the government has
means to garnish assets from people with real income, but again if the
system were fair, there would be little motive to avoid helping your
own
children.

The CS system is not the solution, it's the problem!

As it stands now, you are right. We do need to be able to hole people
responsible. Just not the way it is being done now.

The system is 100% ineffective at holding people to their
responsibilities,
they ignore the very people they are supposed to impose on and take the
easy
cases that are already paying and claim victories that are re not truly
earned.

The Collection industry is all about self preservation!

The solution is to ELIMINATE the "child support" industry. The remedy for
parents who neglect their children should be the same for ALL parents.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"animal02" wrote in message
news:R8Gdnc0Oaf49IbTanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


You say this only because you fail to see the larger picture. Actually,
it
is the government people, not I, who place fathers in such position.
How?
When they say that fathers have no rights to children, they are ALSO
saying
that fathers have no responsibilities to children. It simply follows.

Do I advocate fatherless families? Of course not! But neither do I
advocate
the whackjobs running the government to have thier cake and eat it too.

I will place my bet on the idea that when fathers are completely
eliminated
from the family (almost there now), the negative impact will be so great
that society will be forced to wake up and realize what the government
feminazis have done. Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom before
treatment
is finally sought.

There is no way that winning small battles will EVER cure this cancer
afflicted on the family.

Which is why you are doomed to failure.

Perhaps you might explain how my above claim makes me (personally) doomed to
failure, and just what it is that I am going to fail at.



At best, it will only appease some of the warriors
for justice, while at the same time provoking the enemy to fight even
harder.

Those that fail to learn from history (like yourself) are doomed to repeat
it.

Enlighten me about this "history".



Thus, it will NEVER change.

Because of people like you

How so?



Sometimes, it takes a nuclear bomb to
effect a change, and hitting rock bottom is the perfect catalyst.


sign

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you on this point. It was absolutely
ridiculous
to force everyone into the system, when the vast majority would have
been able to work things out themselves. The incentives should be
removed, 50/50 joint custody should be the default, and child
support,
when needed, should cover basic needs--NOT lifestyle! But there
still
needs to be a system in place for the 3% who refuse to acknowledge
any
responsibility at all.

Given that the majority of the 3% are down and out, the government
has
means to garnish assets from people with real income, but again if the
system were fair, there would be little motive to avoid helping your
own
children.

The CS system is not the solution, it's the problem!

As it stands now, you are right. We do need to be able to hole people
responsible. Just not the way it is being done now.

The system is 100% ineffective at holding people to their
responsibilities,
they ignore the very people they are supposed to impose on and take the
easy
cases that are already paying and claim victories that are re not truly
earned.

The Collection industry is all about self preservation!

The solution is to ELIMINATE the "child support" industry. The remedy for
parents who neglect their children should be the same for ALL parents.

And that would be.............?