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

"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
...


--
[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?

You said your grandmother should be held responsible for your child support.
Why? Did she provide one of the 2 elements necessary to create a child? Not
a red herring at all.

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

It is PRECISELY this kind of thinking that got us here in the first place.
Of course "child support" was good intended when it first started. But like
most government programs, it eventually turned to poison. And guess what? If
you revamp it back to it's original state, it's only a matter of time before
it gets right back to where it is now. Strange thing, repeated history.

"teachrmama" wrote in

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.

Your family was an easy target for them, a responsible working man with
fixed assets is easy prey!
Why hunt for slim pickings when you can have a big fat cash cow for the
taking?

--
[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
...

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.

Read four lines above, and there you will have your answer.

--
[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]
"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.............?

Hint: When you see married parents on the news who have neglected their
children................

--
[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
...


--
[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?

You said your grandmother should be held responsible for your child
support.

No I didn't.


Why? Did she provide one of the 2 elements necessary to create a child?
Not
a red herring at all.

Review the concept of red herring, then get back to me.

teachrmama wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
rned.

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.............?



Methinks his answer is none?
I mean, anarchy probably has it's place in the universe, but...


--

Sarah Gray

"DB" wrote in message
t...

"teachrmama" wrote in

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.

Your family was an easy target for them, a responsible working man with
fixed assets is easy prey!
Why hunt for slim pickings when you can have a big fat cash cow for the
taking?

That's what makes it so disgusting!! Then they jump up and down, beating
their chests with pride, claiming to have collected from another "deadbeat,"
when there was never even a possibility that he wouldn't pay!!

"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]
"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.............?

Hint: When you see married parents on the news who have neglected their
children................

Sorry--that does not answer the question. How would you make sure that the
child's needs were being met? Would you arrest the mother for being ill and
unable to work in a case where the father had walked out on his family and
refused either money or contact? How would you deal with the issue if you
completely wiped out child support?

"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
...

"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.

It is PRECISELY this kind of thinking that got us here in the first place.
Of course "child support" was good intended when it first started. But
like
most government programs, it eventually turned to poison. And guess what?
If
you revamp it back to it's original state, it's only a matter of time
before
it gets right back to where it is now. Strange thing, repeated history.

And, instead of CS, you would..........??