 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / July 2004Past Due Support
I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county but they would not go back to the time I actually filed for support, only from the time they found him - how do I go about suing him for the 6 years he "disappeared"? >I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex >for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county >but they would not go back to the time I actually filed for support, only >from the time they found him - how do I go about suing him for the 6 years >he "disappeared"? ==== File a suit? ==== > I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex > for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county > but they would not go back to the time I actually filed for support, only > from the time they found him - how do I go about suing him for the 6 years > he "disappeared"? If your court order does not establish past due support there is no past due support. >> I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex >> for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If your court order does not establish past due support there is no past due >support. === Minor technicality ;-). Wonder what state this is that only assesses support from the time they find him. Too bad it isn't TM's controlling state. === === > >> I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex > >> for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Minor technicality ;-). Wonder what state this is that only assesses support > from the time they find him. Too bad it isn't TM's controlling state. Gotta be a paternity case and not a divorce case. Until paternity was established there was no CS payments due. > > In article <Ci7Ac.3605$w07.2079@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob > Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Gotta be a paternity case and not a divorce case. Until paternity was > established there was no CS payments due. But my husband was assigned two years arrearages from when paternity was established. Thank goodness they didn't go back to the birth of the child. I wonder if there is any state where they still do that! > >> I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex > >> for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Minor technicality ;-). Wonder what state this is that only assesses support > from the time they find him. Too bad it isn't TM's controlling state. That would be great! Too late to get her to move now, I guess. <chuckle> > I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex > for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county > but they would not go back to the time I actually filed for support, only > from the time they found him - how do I go about suing him for the 6 years > he "disappeared"? Support YOUR kids and get on with your life. Bob  SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ >I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex >for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county >but they would not go back to the time I actually filed for support, only >from the time they found him - how do I go about suing him for the 6 years >he "disappeared"? I can't speak for other states, but I once questioned my attorney about this and was told that my state disallowed retroactive child support. That is... support is only legally due once an order has been established. I suppose that is why I've heard of such a thing as a" temporary order of support" which I suspect would be the order given/asked for upon filing, but before the full case was heard in court. My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good game player and knew how to cause continuances... including hiring an attorney who sat on the board of Legal Aid which created a conflict which caused MY need to change attorney who needed a continuance to catch up on the case. Anyway, I suspect it is because I used Legal Aid that a temporary order of support was never asked for. I didn't have to chase my ex for several years, but I did have to ride out the court schedule. Support was ordered from the month we were divorced, not the month I filed. I'm a bit confused as to why a case was not heard within 6 years, with or without your ex. Service is normally required a reasonable attempt such as publicatrion in a local newspaper to his last known address. A court would have imputed minimum wage should he not have appeared. It would not have helped GETTING the support, but he would have been ordered to pay it. Did you file with the court or with the county child support enforcement office? It would make a difference because the COURT filing would not have occurred until he was found. When one goes to child support enforcement, they are the ones who take him to court and it makes sense that the county would not expend legal resources until they had a reasonable abilty to collect... which means they would need to know where he was. Hence, your support may have been retroactive to the court filing. At any rate, whenever the court establishes support is to begin is irrefutable EXCEPT if there was a misapplication of law and an appeal is sought. The window for appeal is very small and you have likely exceeded it (how long since the judgement?) since you were calm enough to post rationally. No court now will go further back than the date of the last order. This is how our justice system works to empower to courts. You don't stand a chance in h*** of recouping those 6 years. Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be providing regular support. Sure, it may be ordered. Sure, it may be withheld from his pay. Sure, you may have enforcement agencies working with you. But a change in jobs or locations can cause gaps, sometimes large, in the monthly stream of support payments. Your best bet is to get yourself into a position where you can do it yourself (i.e. get a degree and a good job). "Fair" does not feed or clothe your child. It is not unreasonable to expect the father to help even if you can do it yourself, but being able to do it yourself ensures that you and your child will be okay. > My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my > representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > court schedule. Support was ordered from the month we were divorced, > not the month I filed. And never once did you consider getting a job and supporting YOUR kids. YOU are 100% responsible for the support of the kids that YOU choose to bear. The co-equal responsibility of their fathers does not excuse you from your 100% responsibility for their support. Like all whiny bitches you expect men-pay, women-get-paid. Pound sand bitch. SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ >> My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my >> representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Pound sand bitch. Excuse me? What caused you to have the impression that I didn't work or that I don't take 100% responsibility for the support of my children? Having not gone on welfare after splitting, who do you think supported the children 100% until there was an order? Who do you think supports the children 100% when their father is "between jobs?" I have enabled myself to provide for my children without my ex's help AT ALL since that is what I do most of the time anyway. In fact, I have subsidized my ex's existence, too, because he gets the tax dependencies whether or not he pays support... and he had been "between jobs" for a very long time. > >> My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my > >> representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > jobs?" I have enabled myself to provide for my children without my > ex's help AT ALL since that is what I do most of the time anyway. If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this "order"? > In > fact, I have subsidized my ex's existence, too, because he gets the > tax dependencies whether or not he pays support... and he had been > "between jobs" for a very long time. >> >> My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my >> >> representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this "order"? A piece of writing that should be filed under fiction, specifically fantasy? It is the court's fantasy on how they would like to see the division of financial responsibility. >> In >> fact, I have subsidized my ex's existence, too, because he gets the >> tax dependencies whether or not he pays support... and he had been >> "between jobs" for a very long time. > >> >> My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my > >> >> representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > fantasy? It is the court's fantasy on how they would like to see the > division of financial responsibility. Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand in it. > >> In > >> fact, I have subsidized my ex's existence, too, because he gets the > >> tax dependencies whether or not he pays support... and he had been > >> "between jobs" for a very long time. > > >> >> My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my > > >> >> representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand in it. I dunno, Chris. Sounds like Dad had a hand in it, too. He, after all, gets the income tax deductions every year. And he doesn't pay a penny for the privilege. How do you feel about that? > > > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > the income tax deductions every year. And he doesn't pay a penny for the > privilege. How do you feel about that? Income tax deductions for what? > > > > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Income tax deductions for what? He gets to claim the children as dependents on his taxes, even when not paying support. > > > > > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > He gets to claim the children as dependents on his taxes, even when not > paying support. That's news to me! But even if true, how does he have a hand in the lawsuit against himself? <snip> Chris, read below. You say that there would be NO ORDER > > > > > > >If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this > > "order"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > the > > > > > > division of financial responsibility. ******> > > > > Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand > in > > > it.******* > > > > I dunno, Chris. Sounds like Dad had a hand in it, too. He, after > all, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That's news to me! But even if true, how does he have a hand in the lawsuit > against himself? There is nothing about a lawsuit there--only a mention of an unenforced CS order. So what DO you think about dad getting the dependent deductions on his taxes, while paying no child support? > <snip> Chris, read below. You say that there would be NO ORDER > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > There is nothing about a lawsuit there--only a mention of an unenforced CS > order. Just what do you think brings about such "order"? > So what DO you think about dad getting the dependent deductions on > his taxes, while paying no child support? >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] >That's news to me! But even if true, how does he have a hand in the lawsuit >against himself? Readers Digest Version: State removed my eldest son from our custody because my eldest son claimed he was molested by my ex. State asked my ex to reveal his history of child molestation to me, which he did. He was a diagnosed pedophile and had molested 10-12 children previously. I remained married to him, seeking treatment for my ex, until it was hammered into my head that pedophiles are considered incurable. For a while, I considered remaining married, yet living apart, for the next 17 years (our youngest was 1). State threatened to take the remaining children if I did not divorce my ex. I chose my children above my ex and filed for divorce. The offer on the table was for us to be divorced with my retaining custody of the children and the basic household possessions which he had already duplicated. Visitation was to be supervised. I did not ask for spousal support or child support. I never asked for child support for my eldest son either (child of a previous relationship) and it was not a problem. Then again, his father and I had no reason to be in court... his father did not want him. He did not want me to have the children if he could not, so he counterclaimed for custody. The state was poised to take the children should he have gotten custody. My lawyer explained to me that a court appearance meant the judge would automatically order child support, in cases of divorce of a couple with children, according to state guidelines. The judge saw that no mention of spousal or child support was in the motion. My lawyer attempted to waive it. The judge waived spousal, but not child support. I, then, felt it fair to split tax dependencies if we would both be supporting them. A miscommunication occurred and both dependencies went to my ex. As far as my ex's "hand" in the lawsuit, it was the counterclaim which was based in revenge and not reality. He was not going to have custody of the children either way, but he forced it to go to trial. He also had to go through the embarassment of sitting on the stand and admitting he was a pedophile. HIs "hand" in the entire ordeal is what he had done... both to my son and the previous children... although I understand it is a mental illness. I would not have divorced him otherwise, but I was unwilling to give my children away. Adoption proceedings had already begun on my eldest before the divorce was final; however, he was returned to me within a month after the divorce was final. I am sorry that so many of the men on this list are so angry that they cannot see past a "normal" divorce or a "normal" unwed parent situation. I am sorry that I felt it fair to accept whatever child support came in against the tax dependencies I could not claim, but I still think it fair. Many posts I write to women tell them to become independent from child support because it CAN be done. And there is great pride in doing it. My eldest son is now 20. He didn't have a lot of Tommy Hilfiger clothes like many of his friends, but he survived. ................................... >State removed my eldest son from our custody because my eldest son >claimed he was molested by my ex. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I chose my children above my ex and filed for divorce. ==== Yikes--What a mess. Hope all is settled down now. Why isn't/wasn't he in prison? ==== >................................... >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Yikes--What a mess. Hope all is settled down now. Why isn't/wasn't he in prison? >==== Before I met him: He had only confessed what he had done to child protective services and a doctor (who reported to CPS as mandated). Child protective services encouraged the parents to press charges, but none did. Child protective services told me that ALL parents removed their children from harm's way (the daycare to which he had access), but did not want their children to have to testify. After my son's accusation: Ex never admitted my son's accusation to anyone; however, what my son claimed he did matched what he had admitted to doing to the other children explicity. Child protective services encouraged me tro press charges, which I did. My ex was unable to get into specific treatment programs without a conviction. My, then 5 year old, son spoke with an investigator and my ex took a lie detector. First pass at lie detector was inconclusive. Second pass, he managed to pass. No physical evidence with felacio. Police said they needed more testimony. I told them about the file at child protective services. They told me it was protected and could not gain access to it (I have since lobbied and had that law changed... they may now gain access if there is reasonable cause. It is still not as it should be, but better than it was). At any rate, they dropped the charges because they didn't think a grand jury would indict. In divorce court, he admitted to the disease, but not the crimes. Personally, I am not so sure he remembers the crimes. He had a statement from his therapist which diagnosed him with multiple personality disorder. >>................................... >>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >statement from his therapist which diagnosed him with multiple >personality disorder. ===== What a strange set of circumstances. At least you and your kids are out from under it (relatively) now. ===== ===== > >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > I remained married to him, seeking treatment for my ex, until it was > hammered into my head that pedophiles are considered incurable. ????? Heh, you are far more tolerant than I am, that's for sure. > For a while, I considered remaining married, yet living apart, for the > next 17 years (our youngest was 1). > > State threatened to take the remaining children if I did not divorce > my ex. With good reason. > I chose my children above my ex and filed for divorce. Good idea!!! > The offer on the table was for us to be divorced with my retaining > custody of the children and the basic household possessions which he [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > counterclaimed for custody. The state was poised to take the children > should he have gotten custody. Ugh. > My lawyer explained to me that a court appearance meant the judge > would automatically order child support, in cases of divorce of a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dependencies if we would both be supporting them. A miscommunication > occurred and both dependencies went to my ex. Oohh, that sucks!! For you, not him. > As far as my ex's "hand" in the lawsuit, it was the counterclaim which > was based in revenge and not reality. He was not going to have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > final; however, he was returned to me within a month after the divorce > was final. I will refrain from commenting here, for fear of saying something I may regret. > I am sorry that so many of the men on this list are so angry that they > cannot see past a "normal" divorce or a "normal" unwed parent [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lot of Tommy Hilfiger clothes like many of his friends, but he > survived. Heh, I had both parents and still didn't have any Hilfiger clothes, dammit! Just a question though, could you get the decision for the tax deductions reversed? short >> >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] >> >????? Heh, you are far more tolerant than I am, that's for sure. I've always felt that if love is the real thing, it can withstand any storm. I still loved my ex when I filed for divorce, but he gave me the strength to follow through because his anger caused his whole personality to drastically change. I did not know who he was anymore! I was scared of him. My friends used to envy my marriage and I thought that I had truly found my soulmate. Then, I realized I had been married to a stranger for several years. >> For a while, I considered remaining married, yet living apart, for the >> next 17 years (our youngest was 1). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >With good reason. I felt they went too far in demanding divorce, which was against my religious principles. Alas, I don't know if I could have gone 17 years on "high alert" when he was around. >> I chose my children above my ex and filed for divorce. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> >Oohh, that sucks!! For you, not him. It only sucks when he doesn't pay child support. Then I am contributing to HIS support in ADDITION to suporting the children myself. I am willing to support my kids, but not him. >> As far as my ex's "hand" in the lawsuit, it was the counterclaim which >> was based in revenge and not reality. He was not going to have [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Just a question though, could you get the decision for the tax deductions >reversed? Yes, and I plan to ask the court to reduce his child support obligation since the disparity in our incomes has grown (his income has remained the same for the last 10 years whereas mine has increased x3+). I don't care as much about a support order as I do the taxes because I can only control the latter. >short > >> >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> > >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > I've always felt that if love is the real thing, it can withstand any > storm. I still loved my ex when I filed for divorce, No you didn't. > but he gave me > the strength to follow through because his anger caused his whole > personality to drastically change. I did not know who he was anymore! > I was scared of him. My friends used to envy my marriage and I > thought that I had truly found my soulmate. Then, I realized I had > been married to a stranger for several years. No doubt he came to the SAME realization. > >> For a while, I considered remaining married, yet living apart, for the > >> next 17 years (our youngest was 1). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I felt they went too far in demanding divorce, That's because they DID go too far. The government folks have no business getting involved in the divorce business any more than they have any business getting involved in marriage! > which was against my > religious principles. A principle not worth dying for is a principle not worth living for. > Alas, I don't know if I could have gone 17 > years on "high alert" when he was around. Nor will you ever know. > >> I chose my children above my ex and filed for divorce. > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > It only sucks when he doesn't pay child support. Welcome to the world of fairness. It sure does "suck" to not receive FREE UNEARNED money. > Then I am > contributing to HIS support How so? > in ADDITION to suporting the children > myself. I am willing to support my kids, Then DO IT, and stop being concerned about receiving extorted money. > but not him. > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > x3+). I don't care as much about a support order as I do the taxes > because I can only control the latter. Uhuh. It's ALL about the $$$$$$$$$$. Why am I NOT surprised. > >short > >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > motion. My lawyer attempted to waive it. The judge waived spousal, > but not child support. Same thing. > I, then, felt it fair to split tax > dependencies if we would both be supporting them. A miscommunication [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > admitting he was a pedophile. HIs "hand" in the entire ordeal is what > he had done... both to my son and the previous children... NONE of which caused the "order". > although I > understand it is a mental illness. I would not have divorced him > otherwise, I thought you divorced him because the state threatened to take the remaining children if you did NOT divorce him. Which is it? > but I was unwilling to give my children away. Adoption > proceedings had already begun on my eldest before the divorce was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > independent from child support because it CAN be done. And there is > great pride in doing it. For starters, the pride of knowing that they are not STEALING from someone else! > My eldest son is now 20. He didn't have a > lot of Tommy Hilfiger clothes like many of his friends, Neither do MANY children who are raised by both parents. > but he > survived. >> >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > >NONE of which caused the "order". So tell me if you are so smart, what could I have done differently to get the divorce that was necessitated by his actions without causing an order? >> although I >> understand it is a mental illness. I would not have divorced him >> otherwise, > >I thought you divorced him because the state threatened to take the >remaining children if you did NOT divorce him. Which is it? How nice of you to take two separate sentences and put words in my mouth. I SAID that I was unwilling to lose my children in order to remain married. The understanding that it is a mental illness was a statement referring to his potential incapacity to have an understanding of cause and effect. >> but I was unwilling to give my children away. Adoption >> proceedings had already begun on my eldest before the divorce was [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Neither do MANY children who are raised by both parents. But many children whose mothers receive child support do... not all, just many. I was making a point that children do just fine without all the extras. I am aghast when I hear a woman complain about child support because her child cannot take piano lessons without it. THAT is for discretionary income... and I believe Dad has the right to use his discretionary income HIMSELF, not through Mom. If he chooses not to use some of it on his children, that's his choice. But if he does, let HIM be the "good guy" to the children. >> but he >> survived. > >> >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> > >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] > get the divorce that was necessitated by his actions without causing > an order? Whether or not such divorce was "necessitated" is a matter of opinion. But to answer your question ( not making any claim of being "so smart"), according to your claim, there was nothing you could have done differently to get a divorce without causing an order. Thus, it was YOUR choice of action that resulted in the order. > >> although I > >> understand it is a mental illness. I would not have divorced him [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How nice of you to take two separate sentences and put words in my > mouth. "State threatened to take the remaining children if I did not divorce my ex.". Whose words were these..... MINE? > I SAID that I was unwilling to lose my children in order to > remain married. The understanding that it is a mental illness was a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >> but he > >> survived. >> >> >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> >> >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 181 lines] >to get a divorce without causing an order. Thus, it was YOUR choice of >action that resulted in the order. Once my ex decided to take it to trial, it was out of my hands. It was his choice to do that, not mine. >> >> although I >> >> understand it is a mental illness. I would not have divorced him [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> >> but he >> >> survived. > >> >> >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> > >> >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 184 lines] > Once my ex decided to take it to trial, it was out of my hands. It > was his choice to do that, not mine. I equated "court appearance" with filing for divorce. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you equating "court appearance" with his "forcing to go to trial"? > >> >> although I > >> >> understand it is a mental illness. I would not have divorced him [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >> >> but he > >> >> survived. >> >> >> >> > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" ><reddd@juno.com> [quoted text clipped - 216 lines] >misunderstood you. Are you equating "court appearance" with his "forcing to >go to trial"? My understanding, as told to me by my legal aid attorney, was that no court appearance would be necessary should the divorcing parties have an agreement to which they both would stipulate. In that instance, the judge would supposedly sign off after checking the signatures indicating agreement. By forcing it to trial, my ex got into a position where questions were asked and the children were a major point of contention. The judge was made implicitly aware of the fact that there were children and did not finish her verbal order without inquiring about support issues. >> >> >> although I >> >> >> understand it is a mental illness. I would not have divorced him [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> >> >> but he >> >> >> survived. > > Once my ex decided to take it to trial, it was out of my hands. It > > was his choice to do that, not mine. > > I equated "court appearance" with filing for divorce. Perhaps I > misunderstood you. Are you equating "court appearance" with his "forcing to > go to trial"? I'm thinking it was the child molestation that went to trial, and got the state involved. short > > > > > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > He gets to claim the children as dependents on his taxes, even when not > paying support. Umm, no he doesn't, I don't think. I was told by the IRS a few years back, that the Custodial Parent gets to claim the kids. Whether it was true or not I haven't verified, but why would they lie to me? Or you must have provided over half of the individual's support for the year. If he's not paying support, he's definitely not providing over half, now is he? short > > > > I dunno, Chris. Sounds like Dad had a hand in it, too. He, after > all, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > short You can just ignore this, I missed where he was allowed claim them :o) short Just curious bob....do have anything new to reply...cause your getting real old real fast...BORRRRRRINGGGG!!!!! > Just curious bob....do have anything new to reply...cause your getting real > old real fast...BORRRRRRINGGGG!!!!! Translation: Bob hasn't agreed with bunny yet about her taking money from men. SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] Translation you say the same stuff over and over and you are very boring!!!!! Go get some new material! :-D > Translation you say the same stuff over and over and you are very > boring!!!!! > Go get some new material! :-D Translation: Bob hasn't agreed with bunny yet about her taking money from men. SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ > >I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex > >for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to > hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child Uhuh. "His" child when it comes to paying money to the woman; but HER child when it comes to choosing birth, having custody, and collecting so-called "child support"! What's up with THAT? > will most likely not be > providing regular support. Sure, it may be ordered. Sure, it may be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > if you can do it yourself, but being able to do it yourself ensures > that you and your child will be okay. >> >I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my >ex [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >when it comes to choosing birth, having custody, and collecting so-called >"child support"! What's up with THAT? Now I know why you are so bitter. You had a bad education and sentence structure confuses you. The pronoun used is dependent upon the noun for which it refers. If the noun is plural, the proper pronoun is "their." If the noun is masuline, it is "his." If the noun is feminine, it is "her." >> will most likely not be >> providing regular support. Sure, it may be ordered. Sure, it may be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> if you can do it yourself, but being able to do it yourself ensures >> that you and your child will be okay. > >> >I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my > >ex [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > pronoun is "their." If the noun is masuline, it is "his." If the > noun is feminine, it is "her." Nice lil' red herring. > >> will most likely not be > >> providing regular support. Sure, it may be ordered. Sure, it may be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> if you can do it yourself, but being able to do it yourself ensures > >> that you and your child will be okay. > Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to > hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be > providing regular support. Un, no. Supporting a child is NOT **paying** the bitch who broke up the child's family. Paying females has NOTHING to do with supporting a child. You support a child by putting a plate on the table at dinner, and providing a place on your home to sleep. You whinny greedy bitches always pretend that men paying women is "supporting a child" but you lie a lot. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > > Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to > > hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You whinny greedy bitches always pretend that men paying women is > "supporting a child" but you lie a lot. It amounts to nothing more than backdoor alimony. > Bob > > Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to > > hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bob Hey Bob, did you read the rest of her posts? If what she says is true (and personally I have no reason to disbelieve) her kids deserve more than a bit of child support. In this particular case having the father in the picture is a very BAD idea. short >>>Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to >>>hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is a very BAD idea. > short So SHE ought to get off her fat a.s and support the kids that SHE "chose" to bear. All she's doing is whining about some man who doesn't PAY her for being a female. Whinny greedy bitches always pretend that men paying women is "supporting a child" but that's a LIE. In addition, when the female tells it the man is always scum. Boo Hoo. Her probability of truth is way less than 50%, and even if true it doesn't change HER obligation to support HER kids. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ > >>>Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to > >>>hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Her probability of truth is way less than 50%, and even if true it > doesn't change HER obligation to support HER kids. She does support her kids, Bob. 100% Zippo from good old dad. And *he* gets to claim the children on HIS taxes, even though he pays ZIPPO. But that's ok, isn't it, Bob, because he is a MAN. >>>>>Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to >>>>>hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > gets to claim the children on HIS taxes, even though he pays ZIPPO. But > that's ok, isn't it, Bob, because he is a MAN. For a female who claims to be a teacher, you sure can't read very well. What part of "Past Due Support" is so hard to read? But we forget. She's a woman and men-pay, women-get-paid. For bigots like teachermama, getting paid is "supporting" your kids. because she is a female. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > >>>>>Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to > >>>>>hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > For bigots like teachermama, getting paid is "supporting" your kids. > because she is a female. I don't get paid for supporting my kids. I'm married to their father, and both of us work outside the home. But you still didn't answer the question about this guy paying no current support, and yet getting to claim the children on his income taxes, even though mom is supporting them 100%. Is that ok with you, Bob? > > >>>>>Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to > > >>>>>hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > support, and yet getting to claim the children on his income taxes, even > though mom is supporting them 100%. Is that ok with you, Bob? I am sure he won't answer that question. He only responds to say the same ole- BS over and over again. Its getting really boring, reading his posts. lol T > > > >>>>>Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing > to [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > ole- BS over and over again. Its getting really boring, reading his posts. > lol You're right. He didn't answer it. Just did his ol' shuffle routine. <chuckle> > > > >>>>>Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing > to [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > I am sure he won't answer that question. He only responds to say the same > ole- BS over and over again. Such "BS" being? > Its getting really boring, reading his posts. > lol > > T snipped > > I am sure he won't answer that question. He only responds to say the same > > ole- BS over and over again. > > Such "BS" being? Such bs being? What the hell is that? If you are asking "Bs such as....?" Well, read his posts. > snipped > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If you are asking "Bs such as....?" Well, read his posts. The term "BS" to me means false information. Does it mean the same to you? If so, then perhaps you might quote what he said that is false since everything I read from his posts appears to be true. > "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>She does support her kids, Bob. 100% Zippo from good old dad. And *he* [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > support, and yet getting to claim the children on his income taxes, even > though mom is supporting them 100%. Is that ok with you, Bob? LOL. The first thing you said after denying that getting paid is "support" in your femorrhoid mind is "this guy paying." You can't even stop talking about men "paying" long enough to deny believing it. ROFLMAO!!! Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > > "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>She does support her kids, Bob. 100% Zippo from good old dad. And *he* [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You can't even stop talking about men "paying" long enough to deny > believing it. ROFLMAO!!! Let me try it in big letters for you, Bob. DO YOU THINK IT IS OK FOR HIM TO TAKE THE TAX $$$$$$$$ DEDUCTIONS WHEN HE IS CONTRIBUTING NO $$$$$$$$$ MONEY TOWARDS THE CHILDREN'S SUPPORT? If you think it is ok for him to do this, please explain why. >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > TOWARDS THE CHILDREN'S SUPPORT? If you think it is ok for him to do this, > please explain why. Gosh, she's all riled up. Shouting at us. Taxes are the other thread. This one is about "Past Due Support." It's all about the money for you isn't it, Toots. Men-pay, women-get-paid. It's always about money for the females. Mom has a 100% co-equal RESPONSIBILITY to support the kids SHE chose to bear. It's "a woman's right to choose" legally. If she's supporting her kids 100% it's no more than her responsibility. Supporting kids is putting an extra plate out at dinner and providing them with a place to sleep. It's NOT ABOUT THE ROBBING MONEY FROM THEIR FATHER! If she can't or won't support her kids she should do like females have been doing for millions of years, take them to their father for his support. Is it okay to take the tax deduction? Heck, Bob really doesn't think it's okay to get the divorce 99% of the time when children are involved. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > It's all about the money for you isn't it, Toots. It sure isn't, Bob. It's about fairness. And, perhaps, about you actually answering a question about fairness when it involves the man being unfair. But I guess you've adequately proved that you are unable to recognize unfairness when it comes to a man being the unfair one. As I said to you once before, a misogynist is just as wrong as a misandrist. > Men-pay, women-get-paid. It's always about money for the females. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bob > > >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > unfairness when it comes to a man being the unfair one. As I said to you > once before, a misogynist is just as wrong as a misandrist. Wow, same ole' sentences again. He must copy/paste to save himself from having to type all that over and over again. Now I must stop or I will be saying the same worthless sh.t as he is. T > > > >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Now I must stop or I will be saying the same worthless sh.t as he is. Me, too. I'm done with him. He never answers questions, just posts the same old drivel no matter what question is asked. Case in point being my question in this thread about the man getting tax breaks for children he doesn't support. He never answers--just goes back to his accusatory misogynistic rantings. Oh, well......... >>>>>>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > doesn't support. He never answers--just goes back to his accusatory > misogynistic rantings. Oh, well......... Indeed, no matter how many times you post your old tired feminazi crap, the answer is still the same. [Hint: The days that feminists can shut up men by hurling insults are over.] Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] >> "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>She does support her kids, Bob. 100% Zippo from good old dad. And *he* [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Bob Would it have helped you understand her question if it was phrased: How do you feel about a person who takes tax deductions on children this person does not support in any manner? Is it reasonable for the person whom is actually doing the supporting, whether it be man or woman, to desire remuneration? >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Would it have helped you understand her question if it was phrased: That is 2 questions. 1. > How do you feel about a person who takes tax deductions on children > this person does not support in any manner? Tax deductions should be based on actual support, but in the USA the "custodial parent" is given 100% of the tax deduction unless SHE signs a waiver. (It's almost always "she.") 2. > Is it reasonable for the > person whom is actually doing the supporting, whether it be man or > woman, to desire remuneration? No, it's not reasonable for either person to demand payment for doing what they are 100% RESPONSIBLE to do -- support her children. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] ................................................. >That is 2 questions. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Bob ===== Just curious, Bob--Do you have any kids? ===== ===== > ................................................. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > ===== > ===== Bob has raised a family. They are grown, educated, and fine young men now. Bob also has step daughters who are fine young independent women. Do you? Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > > ................................................. > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Bob has raised a family. They are grown, educated, and fine young men > now. Bob also has step daughters who are fine young independent women. Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? If you are such a successful parent, why are you so angry about how the CS system treats fathers? You come off more like an angry, immature male who was abandoned by his father and listened to his mother's BS about the CS system. And then it's like you had it all happen to you just like she explained it took down your dad, except being on the recieving end really pisses you off. So now you are really angry at your mother for misleading you and your mind is conflicted about reality. > Do you? Do you know anyone else in this NG, or elsewhere, who refers to themselves in the familiar sense using their first name? When did you become such a disturbed egomaniac? >> > ................................................. >> > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >except being on the recieving end really pisses you off. So now you are >really angry at your mother for misleading you and your mind is conflicted ==== Thanks for the clarification. I knew he had issues but wasn't sure what they were ;-) ==== about reality. >> Do you? > >Do you know anyone else in this NG, or elsewhere, who refers to themselves >in the familiar sense using their first name? === Bob Dole. Wonder if they're related. === === When did you become such a >disturbed egomaniac? > >> > ................................................. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Thanks for the clarification. I knew he had issues but wasn't sure what they > were ;-) He may "have issues"; but the fact is that his posts are infested with TRUTH. > ==== > about reality. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When did you become such a > >disturbed egomaniac? ............................... >He may "have issues"; but the fact is that his posts are infested with >TRUTH. ====== Noted: Chris agrees with Bob. ====== ====== > ............................... > > > >He may "have issues"; but the fact is that his posts are infested with > >TRUTH. > ====== > Noted: Chris agrees with Bob. Safe assumption. > ====== > ====== > Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? If you are such a successful > parent, why are you so angry about how the CS system treats fathers? You [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > really angry at your mother for misleading you and your mind is conflicted > about reality. Please post your psychotherapy license. Or, are you just blowing sh.t out both ends. We await your answer. SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > > Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? If you are such a successful > > parent, why are you so angry about how the CS system treats fathers? You [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All > posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > > Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? If you are such a successful > > parent, why are you so angry about how the CS system treats fathers? You [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Please post your psychotherapy license. Can't do that. My degree is in a discipline other than psychotherapy. > Or, are you just blowing sh.t out both ends. No just one end and it's directed solely at you. > We await your answer. Who is included in "we." You are displaying characteristics of delusional schizophrenia. > > > Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? If you are such a > successful [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Who is included in "we." You are displaying characteristics of delusional > schizophrenia. With all due respect, your disqualifications of his argument are based on a genetic fallacy rather than the merits of the argument itself. >>>Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? If you are such a >>> successful [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Can't do that. My degree is in a discipline other than psychotherapy. IOW: You're just another sad a.shole so full of crap that it runs out all over your keyboard. You need to apologize for all your nonsense psychobabble diarrhea. >>Or, are you just blowing sh.t out both ends. > > No just one end and it's directed solely at you. Translation: There is someone who is an immature male abandoned by his father, really angry with his mother, and who's mind is conflicted about reality, and his name is Whiteside. In his anger Whiteside projects his sh.t at every decent MAN he meets. Pathetic. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > >>>Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? If you are such a > >>> successful [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > all over your keyboard. You need to apologize for all your nonsense > psychobabble diarrhea. I apologize other people have to listen to your immature ramblings and your inability to answer a simple question - If you are such a successful parent, why are you so angry at the CS system? > >>Or, are you just blowing sh.t out both ends. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reality, and his name is Whiteside. In his anger Whiteside projects his > sh.t at every decent MAN he meets. Pathetic. So how can you claim to the a "decent man" when you talk to women the way you do? Do "decent men" call women names? Do "decent men" assume all women think alike? > [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All > posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] Why can't other people follow the same approach you use to posting here? > "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > If you are such a successful parent, > why are you so angry at the CS system? So called "CS" is a radical feminist social experiment first implemented in the 20th century. It has been responsible for the wanton destruction of millions of families and has hurt untold millions of children. Any decent parent would oppose a program that hurts millions of children. So called "CS" was invented by feminism in the 19th century as a plan to allow wives to leave their husbands, take his children, and still be supported by him. Any decent parent would oppose a program that is designed to destroy families. It amounts to indentured servitude, a form of slavery. Any decent citizen is opposed to slavery. The real question that decent people would ask is why you would support a program intended to destroy families, hurt children, and put men into slavery? So tell us Whiteside, why do you support the destruction of families, hurting of children, and slavery? >>Translation: There is someone who is an immature male abandoned by his >>father, really angry with his mother, and who's mind is conflicted about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you do? Do "decent men" call women names? Do "decent men" assume all women > think alike? LOL. You think that anyone with a c.nt deserves to be excused from responsibility for all her hate and prejudice because she is female. You still think that after more than a century of feminists claiming to be "equal"? You are very twisted above the ears. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ >> "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >So tell us Whiteside, why do you support the destruction of families, >hurting of children, and slavery? ===== You are confusing his lack of support for your postings for support of the CS system. Most of us here strongly oppose the system but most of us here do not support your vile rhetoric. (Chris' support has been noted.) What specific actions have you taken to change the system? ===== ===== > >> "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > system. Most of us here strongly oppose the system but most of us here do not > support your vile rhetoric. (Chris' support has been noted.) What I support is that which is the TRUTH! Feel free to classify it as "vile rhetoric", but that is merely your opinion. Last I checked, this was NOT Alt.opinion. > What specific > actions have you taken to change the system? > ===== > ===== >> >> "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >What I support is that which is the TRUTH! === He hasn't said anything coherent enough to determine its truthfulness or lack thereof. === > Feel free to classify it as "vile >rhetoric", but that is merely your opinion. === Yeah, I suppose I am the only one who sees it that way. === > Last I checked, this was NOT >Alt.opinion. === Damn! You mean we aren't allowed to give our opinions on Usenet? Say it ain't so! === === > >> >> "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > He hasn't said anything coherent enough to determine its truthfulness or lack > thereof. In YOUR opinion. > === > > Feel free to classify it as "vile > >rhetoric", but that is merely your opinion. > === > Yeah, I suppose I am the only one who sees it that way. Who knows. There may be others who have the same tastes as you. > === > > Last I checked, this was NOT > >Alt.opinion. > === > Damn! You mean we aren't allowed to give our opinions on Usenet? Say it ain't > so! Give it all you want, but opinions say NOTHING about fact. > === > === >> >> >> "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >Give it all you want, but opinions say NOTHING about fact. ===== You just figured that out? ===== ===== > > "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of millions of families and has hurt untold millions of children. Any > decent parent would oppose a program that hurts millions of children. No wonder your comments don't make any sense. You lump together and mix up changes in custody decision making standards, no fault divorce laws, the feminist movement from the 60's-70's, the developement of CS guidelines, and call them all "CS." > So called "CS" was invented by feminism in the 19th century as a plan to > allow wives to leave their husbands, take his children, and still be > supported by him. Any decent parent would oppose a program that is > designed to destroy families. Nice rhetoric, but not factually accurate. You need to stop mixing up cause and effect, and forgetting there is a timeline of events that got us to where we are today. > It amounts to indentured servitude, a form of slavery. Any decent > citizen is opposed to slavery. > > The real question that decent people would ask is why you would support > a program intended to destroy families, hurt children, and put men into > slavery? I do not support "no fault" divorce. I do not support young women having children out of wedlock. I do not support child custody decisions that force fathers out of children's lives. I do not support government intervention in the family. I do not support gender bias in the family law system. I do not support financial incentives to breakup the family. I do not support CS without some sort of accounting on how it is spent. I do not support only one parent being monitored for how much they contribute to the care and maintenance of their children. I do not support the phoney logic behind the setting of CS guidelines. > So tell us Whiteside, why do you support the destruction of families, > hurting of children, and slavery? I don't. > >>Translation: There is someone who is an immature male abandoned by his > >>father, really angry with his mother, and who's mind is conflicted about [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > LOL. You think that anyone with a c.nt deserves to be excused from > responsibility for all her hate and prejudice because she is female. More proof you are not a "decent man." And more proof you project you hatred of women in your life onto all other women. >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > feminist movement from the 60's-70's, the developement of CS guidelines, and > call them all "CS." No wonder your comments don't make any sense. You know nothing of the history of feminism, CS, or anything related to the topic. [Hint: Feminism was more than a century old in the "60's-70's"] >>So called "CS" was invented by feminism in the 19th century as a plan to >> allow wives to leave their husbands, take his children, and still be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and effect, and forgetting there is a timeline of events that got us to > where we are today. Yes, you need to review the history of feminism and the timeline for the creation of so-called "child support" as a radical feminist social experiment to allow females to leave their husband, take the children, and still force men to support them. It was adopted as a goal of feminism in the middle of the 19th century, and was actively promoted for more than a century until it became law throughout the US and in other places. Get back to us after you have studied more history of your topic. >>It amounts to indentured servitude, a form of slavery. Any decent >>citizen is opposed to slavery. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > system. I do not support financial incentives to breakup the family. I do > not support CS without some sort of accounting on how it is spent. Contradicting yourself two sentences in a row? How expected. Are you sure you're not female? You can't be consistent two sentences in a row. So-called "CS" IS a financial incentive to break up a family. That's what it's always been about. That's what it does. It's been a total disaster for untold millions of children, and you support it (with accounting). > I do not > support only one parent being monitored for how much they contribute to the > care and maintenance of their children. I do not support the phoney logic > behind the setting of CS guidelines. But you do support the feminist social experiment called "CS." How very feminist of you. Methods for setting "CS guidelines" is NOT the problem. Hint: You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. >>So tell us Whiteside, why do you support the destruction of families, >>hurting of children, and slavery? > I don't. LOL. You just did, inbetween denials you supported it. CS is indentured servitude, a form of slavery, and you support it. CS hurts children, and you support it. CS pays for the destruction of families, and you support it. Decent people try to help families, not hurt children. >>>>Translation: There is someone who is an immature male abandoned by his >>>>father, really angry with his mother, and who's mind is conflicted about [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > More proof you are not a "decent man." And more proof you project you > hatred of women in your life onto all other women. LOL. Your psychobabble is as phony as a $3 bill. You have no credibility in psychoanalysis, as you told us already today. So why don't you drop it and stop making such a fool of yourself? Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ > >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > So-called "CS" IS a financial incentive to break up a family. AMEN! > That's > what it's always been about. That's what it does. It's been a total [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Bob > > >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > AMEN! CS itself is not a financial incentive to breakup the family. The almost certain mother custody coupled with predictable levels of CS are financial incentives to breakup the family. My point is if there was some question about who would get custody, and the level of CS in the CS guidelines was not treated as de facto law, the incentives to divorce would not be so strongly in favor of women walking away from relationships. IOW - It's how the laws are applied, not what they say. > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message >>>> I do [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > CS itself is not a financial incentive to breakup the family. LOL. When did you grow breasts? Feminists invented CS to pay them to break up families. > The almost > certain mother custody coupled with predictable levels of CS are financial > incentives to breakup the family. Which contradicts your previous sentence. CS is a financial incentive to break up families. > My point is if there was some question > about who would get custody, and the level of CS in the CS guidelines was > not treated as de facto law, the incentives to divorce would not be so > strongly in favor of women walking away from relationships. IOW - It's how > the laws are applied, not what they say. You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. Applying a wrong law more effectively does not change it into helping a family stay together. In order to discuss "better" CS guidelines you have to affirm the existence of CS, and that is harmful to families. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ > > > >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>>If you are such a successful parent, [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > strongly in favor of women walking away from relationships. IOW - It's how > the laws are applied, not what they say. For what it's worth, the ONLY thing that counts is what's applied; not what is written. Not to mention the fact that it is ALWAYS wrong to force someone to give their money to someone else unless they have incurred a debt or financial loss to the other party! > > >>>Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? If you are such a > > >>> successful [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > inability to answer a simple question - If you are such a successful parent, > why are you so angry at the CS system? Because the CS system is ANT-successful parent (specifically father)? > > >>Or, are you just blowing sh.t out both ends. > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Why can't other people follow the same approach you use to posting here? My guess is that rather than carefully analyzing the position, you are carefully analyzing the man. > > > [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All > > > posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My guess is that rather than carefully analyzing the position, you are > carefully analyzing the man. Attempts to analyze his positions were discarded as being done in support of the CS system. Attempts to use logic and factual data to counter outrageous claims were summarily dismissed as not representing the real facts only he knew about. Attempts to have him produce evidence to back up positions were deflected and posters were told to look it up themselves. When references were posted they did not prove what he claimed they proved. While he has a right to say anything he wants in this NG, putting out false information and manipulated data to support a radical position is not productive, and calling women and men foul names because they stand up to the BS is not okay and he needs to be called on it. And my point was - If he can ascribe motives to other posters, we have the right to do the same back to him. ....................................... >> ===== >> Just curious, Bob--Do you have any kids? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Bob has raised a family. They are grown, educated, and fine young men >now. Bob also has step daughters who are fine young independent women. ====== That's nice. Were you 100% responsible for their support? Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? ====== >Do you? ====== Lots of em. The first 4 (1 adopted--boy age 25, 1 bio--boy age 23, 2 steps--1 boy age 23, 1 girl age 21) are slightly imperfect. The last two (both bio boys age 11 & 9) are perfect. ====== ====== >Bob > ....................................... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ====== > That's nice. Were you 100% responsible for their support? Of course. > Why do you refer to > yourself in the third person? That's Bob's style. It drives the fruitcakes loony. > ====== > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ====== > ====== Congrats. SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] >>>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >"custodial parent" is given 100% of the tax deduction unless SHE signs a >waiver. (It's almost always "she.") See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf, page 21, under Children Who Did Not Live With You Due to Divorce or Separation. It specifically states: "If your divorce decree or separation agreement went into effect after 1984, you may attach certain pages from the decree or agreement instead of Form 8332." >2. >> Is it reasonable for the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No, it's not reasonable for either person to demand payment for doing >what they are 100% RESPONSIBLE to do -- support her children. The second question was dependent upon the first, Bob. The parent supporting the children OBVIOUSLY does so 100% if the other parent does not in any manner. Remuneration is for the supporting parent rightfully earned, but the other parent took through the IRS procedures. >Bob >>>>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > 1984, you may attach certain pages from the decree or agreement > instead of Form 8332." Been there, done that. Next. >>2. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > supporting the children OBVIOUSLY does so 100% if the other parent > does not in any manner. Right so far. Each parent is co-equally 100% responsible. > Remuneration is for the supporting parent > rightfully earned, WRONG! You don't "earn" anything for doing what your are fully responsible to do. Supporting YOUR kids is YOUR responsibility. > but the other parent took through the IRS > procedures. The IRS generally grants the deduction to the "custodial" parent, unless the deduction is transferred. The "custodial" parent is usually supporting the children. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] >>>>>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >WRONG! You don't "earn" anything for doing what your are fully >responsible to do. Supporting YOUR kids is YOUR responsibility. Earned through working at a job for it. Taxes are withheld from the person's paycheck and the "account" is "settled" the following year whereby the taxpayer must pay more or gets a refund. Now, how would you feel if you were asked to pay more so they could send it to the other person? Is it so wrong to ask the other person pay their own damn taxes and give you back what you paid for them? For what it is worth, dependencies, including ones own, is meant to be a nontaxable portion of income attributed directly to each dependent claimed in which the basic necessities of life can be sustained. It is similar to not paying a sales tax on things such as groceries or clothing. If a noncustodial parent pays child support, the nontaxable portion of income can be attributed to the dependents claimed; however, the nontaxable portion of income cannot meet the children needs as intended if a person claims the children as dependents yet contributes no basic necessity in any manner. >> but the other parent took through the IRS >> procedures. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Bob > If a noncustodial parent pays child support, Uh, no. Paying is not supporting a child. They always switches topics to men-pay, women-get-paid. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > > If a noncustodial parent pays child support, > > Uh, no. Paying is not supporting a child. You can say THAT again. "Child support" money is nothing more than FREE cash to a woman because she made the SOLE choice to bring her child into the world. (note: there is NO legal requirement for her to spend one thin dime of such proceeds on her child) > They always switches topics to men-pay, women-get-paid. Exactly, as demonstrated above. > Bob >> If a noncustodial parent pays child support, > >Uh, no. Paying is not supporting a child. So, as you supported your children 100% by putting a plate on the table at dinner and providing a place to sleep, I suppose you grew/raised all your own food from the seeds/offspring of what you ate last season and built a cabin in the woods with your own bare hands, gnawing the trees down with your teeth? Or did you pay the grocer for the food you used to support your child and pay the landlord/mortgage holder for the place you provided for your child to sleep? >They always switches topics to men-pay, women-get-paid. Seems to me that you help keep the system flawed as it is by EXPECTING the noncustodial parent to be a certain gender. >Bob >>>If a noncustodial parent pays child support, >> >>Uh, no. Paying is not supporting a child. > > So, as you supported your children 100% by putting a plate on the > table at dinner and providing a place to sleep, Absolutely. Providing for the needs of your child IS supporting your child. It's YOUR responsibility, Toots. > I suppose you > grew/raised all your own food from the seeds/offspring of what you ate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Seems to me that you help keep the system flawed as it is by EXPECTING > the noncustodial parent to be a certain gender. NOW uses the terms "the custodial parent" and "the mother" interchangeably. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > >> If a noncustodial parent pays child support, > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the food you used to support your child and pay the landlord/mortgage > holder for the place you provided for your child to sleep? Hey, Beverly, notice in Bob's reply that he agrees with providing a plate and a place to sleep, but he doesn't respond at all to the part where you ask if he spent money to do so. <chuckle> Typical > >They always switches topics to men-pay, women-get-paid. > > Seems to me that you help keep the system flawed as it is by EXPECTING > the noncustodial parent to be a certain gender. > > > >Bob > Hey, Beverly, notice in Bob's reply that he agrees with providing a plate > and a place to sleep, but he doesn't respond at all to the part where you > ask if he spent money to do so. <chuckle> Typical Yep, for feminists it's never about taking care of the kids. It's only ever about the money. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > > Hey, Beverly, notice in Bob's reply that he agrees with providing a plate > > and a place to sleep, but he doesn't respond at all to the part where you > > ask if he spent money to do so. <chuckle> Typical > > Yep, for feminists it's never about taking care of the kids. It's only > ever about the money. I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children without EVER spending one thin dime. Whether or not one spends money in doing so is no one else's business. > Bob >>>Hey, Beverly, notice in Bob's reply that he agrees with providing a >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > EVER spending one thin dime. Whether or not one spends money in doing so is > no one else's business. Right you are Chris. Fathers are always focused on the welfare of the children, and feminists are always focused on the money. On Usenet I have yet to see an exception. For feminists, it is ALWAYS about the money. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children without >EVER spending one thin dime. Hey Chris, just *exactly* where is this possible? I know of a whole pack of parents that will be packed and ready to move just as soon as you spill the beans. Mrs Indyguy > >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children without > >EVER spending one thin dime. > > Hey Chris, just *exactly* where is this possible? I know of a whole pack of > parents that will be packed and ready to move just as soon as you spill the > beans. Watch National Geographic or the Discovery Channel sometime, and I am certain that you will find such places sooner rather than later. But technically speaking, this is possible anywhere. > Mrs Indyguy > > >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > without [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > certain that you will find such places sooner rather than later. > But technically speaking, this is possible anywhere. Oh, please, tell us how you do it, Chris. How do you manage to have food, shelter, and a computer hookup without money? > > > >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > > without [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oh, please, tell us how you do it, Chris. How do you manage to have food, > shelter, and a computer hookup without money? I asked for specifics at least a month ago, and he never bothered to answer - I'm most especially interested in how I provide my daughter with a pair of sneakers at no cost, since she outgrew her most recent pair. Oh, and meals......... meals at no cost would be nice - preferably 3 a day per person, at least for the growing children - I can probably get by on 2 a day. And a place to live at no cost - keeping in mind that I have a girl and a boy, so they require separate sleeping areas :-) And some utilities - nothing fancy, maybe some electricity? And running water? And an indoor toilet? Tell us Chris......... how does one get all of these things at no cost? Inquiring minds want to know :-) > > > > >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > > > without [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Tell us Chris......... how does one get all of these things at no cost? Nice twist. I never said at "no cost". > Inquiring minds want to know :-) > > > > >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > > > without [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Inquiring minds want to know :-) ------------ Damn my newsgroup connection. I just now got the posts on this thread. Oh well I'm going to add my 2 pence anyway. How do you provide a pair of sneakers at no cost? It can be done at no cost. My dearest friend who has 4 kids and in the past nearly 0 income provided 90% of their stuff by dumpster diving and shopping thrift stores. And meals? Yep, she knew all the places that tossed the leftover perfectly good food at the end of the day. Every day there was a full bag of warm, fresh bagels at her house for example. A place to live? Usually she was able to get a one bedroom place. The kids, 3 girls and 1 boy, made due with sleeping in the living room, utility room and even once a closet. They did not require seperate sleeping areas. Utilities? Well she did qualify for low income rates but usually the utilities were included in the rent. And yes they always had an indoor toilet. Well except when she was still with her husband. Then they had an outhouse. Really. I have known these kids since they were little kids. The eldest is going to the UofA in her 3rd year. All the others are in school doing well. All of them are open, honest, tolerant, helpful and very supportive of each other. Sure, my friend would have loved it if things had been easier and there had been more money. She would have been a lawyer ages ago instead of being in her last year of law school. But the kids learned the value of a dollar, (and an education), and will have a good work ethic. I am proud of those kids and their mom. ~AZ~ > > > >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > > without [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oh, please, tell us how you do it, Chris. How do you manage to have food, > shelter, and a computer hookup without money? Not my claim. > > > > >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > > > without [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not my claim. May I ask what you meant by this statement? "I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children without EVER spending one thin dime." That's a direct quote btw. short > > > > > >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > > > > without [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > "I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children without > EVER spending one thin dime." I meant exactly what it says. Which part of it is troubling you? > That's a direct quote btw. > > short Chris avoided answering the question to yet another poster when he said: >> "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message >news:N1HCc.57$Ph.21@fed1read06... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >I meant exactly what it says. Which part of it is troubling you? The same part that troubles amny others, Chris. Your inability to tell others just how *folks all around the globe care for their children without ever spending one thin dime* Mrs Indyguy >> That's a direct quote btw. >> >> short > Chris avoided answering the question to yet another poster when he said: Said what? > >> "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > >news:N1HCc.57$Ph.21@fed1read06... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > just how *folks all around the globe care for their children without ever > spending one thin dime* I am uncertain what more you are looking for. Answering your above question is like answering "just how does one walk without shoes?". > Mrs Indyguy > > > >> That's a direct quote btw. > >> > >> short >> "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message >news:N1HCc.57$Ph.21@fed1read06... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >I meant exactly what it says. Which part of it is troubling you? ==== Maybe it's the "thin dime" part that you denied saying? ==== >> That's a direct quote btw. >> >> short > >> "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > >news:N1HCc.57$Ph.21@fed1read06... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > ==== > Maybe it's the "thin dime" part that you denied saying? Your above question is unclear to me. > ==== > > > >> That's a direct quote btw. > >> > >> short >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message >> ==== >> Maybe it's the "thin dime" part that you denied saying? > >Your above question is unclear to me. === No surprise there. === > >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > === > No surprise there. No clarification either. The burden of communication rests with the sender. > === > > >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No clarification either. The burden of communication rests with the sender. What does that mean? > > > >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What does that mean? It means he has no intention of answering the question of how to support a child without spending one thin dime! > > > > >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It means he has no intention of answering the question of how to support a > child without spending one thin dime! You missed the sarcasm. Actually communication is much more than the sender making their message clear. People who hear communications have "filters" through which the communication passes. The filters allow messages through that fit a pre-determined template of what the listener expects to hear. The receiver of the communication has an obligation to recognize they have filters, but many do not. Much of the recent debate in this NG has been based on people hearing what they want to hear and discarding things that don't fit their agenda. The Myers-Briggs personality type indicators address these issues. People who are strong at "sensing" pay attention to what is real and factual. They are described as being realistic, practical, experience-based, or traditional. People who are strong at "intuition" pay attention to a big picture and patterns. They are described as abstract, imaginative, inference-based, and theoretical. They will invent patterns if none exist. When you have personality types that are intuitive and are strong on "feeling" you end up with people inventing patterns to match their strong feelings. (Sound familiar?) And naturally they clash with people who use their senses to gather information and rely on "thinking" to process the information. >> > > > >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >their senses to gather information and rely on "thinking" to process the >information. ===== There you go again, stepping all over everyone's fun ;-) ===== > > > > > >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You missed the sarcasm. <sigh> I knew I should have put a <chuckle> on my response. I was being sarcastic, too. You must be one of them thar factual type people! <smile> > > >> "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:N1HCc.57$Ph.21@fed1read06... [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Your above question is unclear to me. Would you like syrup with that waffle? >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children >without [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Watch National Geographic or the Discovery Channel sometime, and I am >certain that you will find such places sooner rather than later. Considering what you originally wrote, Chris, the names of the places where it doesn't cost *one thin dime* to care for children, I'm shocked you didn't list the locations of these wonderous places to raise children without it costing anything! But let's see...... if you are refering people to places that are profiled on NG and Discovery then I suppose keeping children free of Maleria, Small Pox, Aids and countless other fatal, and VERY common diseases at that, would be some what of a concern don"t ya think? And if you put on your thinking cap, for just a moment, you may realize that even people in these third world countries DON'T raise their children for free. They depend on the generosity of countires, like the USA, for many of their life sustaining needs. Making it NOTfree to raise these children, but rather having someone else pay for it. >But technically speaking, this is possible anywhere. How? Just how is this possible *anywhere*? If you are under the impression a parent can just claim squaters rights on a parcel of land, cut down trees (with their bare hands) to build themself a shelter, eat off the fruits of the land, wear leaves to cover their bodies, and educate their children from their experiences alone, you are wrong. Once they are found they would be either be locked up for child endangerment, trespassing and theft or hospitalized for being a crack pot. Or if you are refering to that *one thin dime* not coming from their own pocket, but from the tax payers pockets (ie welfare) then again you are wrong, seeing that someone is still paying, just not the parents. So I challenge you Chris. List *exactly where* and *how* any parent can raise their children without one thin dime from ANYONES pocket. Mrs Indyguy (not holding her breathe) >> Mrs Indyguy ................................. >>But technically speaking, this is possible anywhere. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >shelter, eat off the fruits of the land, wear leaves to cover their bodies, >and educate their children from their experiences alone, you are wrong. ===== Affirmative. My ex and I did this in our hippie days (WV,1970s) except we had a rent-free for fix-up on an old, long abandoned farmhouse. We raised our own vegetables, meat, eggs, milk--even cut our hay with a scythe, kept honey bees, and made our own wine and moonshine (I think the statute of limitation has expired on that ;-). No electricity, cooked and heated with wood and carried water from a spring. We lived on about 2k-3k per year. Cheap but not free. Our money went to maintenance on our very old Jeep, chicken feed and misc. nutrients for the animals, canning supplies (although we did some food dehydration), dog food, household necessities and home fixing materials. We wired, plumbed drywalled the house before we moved. Note, however that we had no kids during most of this time. We adopted our oldest son while there but he certainly didn't increase our living expenses. But, we bought a piece of land and built a "real" house on it before his first winter--We didn't trust him to keep his bankets on overnight and that house was real drafty about 3-4 AM when the wood fire died down. We were able to save quite a bit of money while there. BTW, what I learned during those years was priceless and they were some of the best years of my life. ===== ===== > ................................. > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > during those years was priceless and they were some of the best years of my > life. ---------------- Wow! Just wow! ~AZ~ > ===== > ===== > >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > >without [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Aids and countless other fatal, and VERY common diseases at that, would be some > what of a concern don"t ya think? Ignoratio elenchi. > And if you put on your thinking cap, for just a moment, you may realize that > even people in these third world countries DON'T raise their children for free. NOT my claim. > They depend on the generosity of countires, like the USA, for many of their > life sustaining needs. Making it NOTfree to raise these children, but rather [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How? Just how is this possible *anywhere*? Your above questions suggest that man has been relying on cash for his survival since the beginning of Creation. "In the beginning, God created man and saw that it was good. He realized that man could not survive without money. So, He provided man with a big treasure chest full of cash, and saw that it was VERY good!" > If you are under the impression a parent can just claim squaters rights on a > parcel of land, cut down trees (with their bare hands) to build themself a > shelter, eat off the fruits of the land, wear leaves to cover their bodies, > and educate their children from their experiences alone, you are wrong. Once > they are found they would be either be locked up for child endangerment, > trespassing and theft or hospitalized for being a crack pot. Slippery slope. > Or if you are refering to that *one thin dime* not coming from their own > pocket, I'm not. > but from the tax payers pockets (ie welfare) then again you are wrong, > seeing that someone is still paying, just not the parents. > > So I challenge you Chris. List *exactly where* and *how* any parent can raise > their children without one thin dime from ANYONES pocket. What the heck does THAT mean, from anyone's pocket? > Mrs Indyguy > (not holding her breathe) > > >> Mrs Indyguy >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children >> >without [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Ignoratio elenchi. Care to explain? >> And if you put on your thinking cap, for just a moment, you may realize >that >> even people in these third world countries DON'T raise their children for >free. > >NOT my claim. Ok, then how does *not one thin dime* differ from free? >> They depend on the generosity of countires, like the USA, for many of >their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Your above questions suggest that man has been relying on cash for his >survival since the beginning of Creation. We're not talking about biblical days, Chris, and you know that. We're talking 2004. So share with us, *exactly* where can parents raise their kids in 2004, without spending *one thin dime*? "In the beginning, God created man >and saw that it was good. He realized that man could not survive without >money. So, He provided man with a big treasure chest full of cash, and saw >that it was VERY good!" Chris, do yourself a favor and stop reading Bob's posts. You are starting to dance around issues like he does and trust me it won't do anything for your credibility on this NG. >> If you are under the impression a parent can just claim squaters rights on >a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Slippery slope. How so? >> Or if you are refering to that *one thin dime* not coming from their own >> pocket, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >What the heck does THAT mean, from anyone's pocket? Parents, realitives, friends, government agencies, etc. Keep in mind even those that stand in line for cheese at city halls all over America aren't doing it without using someones. dime, specifically the governmets, which by the way is funded by me, you and anyone else that pays taxes. And please don't take offense but I have my own kids to support and have no interest in paying the way for anyone who feels they can raise kids without *spending one thin dime*. Mrs Indyguy >> Mrs Indyguy >> (not holding her breathe) >> >> >> Mrs Indyguy > >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > >> >without [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Care to explain? Your conclusion is irrelevant to the issue. > >> And if you put on your thinking cap, for just a moment, you may realize > >that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ok, then how does *not one thin dime* differ from free? "Free", in my mind, means without obligation. Money need not be part of such obligation. > >> They depend on the generosity of countires, like the USA, for many of > >their [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 2004. So share with us, *exactly* where can parents raise their kids in 2004, > without spending *one thin dime*? Argumentum ab annis. > "In the beginning, God created man > >and saw that it was good. He realized that man could not survive without [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dance around issues like he does and trust me it won't do anything for your > credibility on this NG. I dance around NO issue. > >> If you are under the impression a parent can just claim squaters rights on > >a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How so? You are assuming that one proposition should be rejected because it will lead to another unacceptable proposition. Not to mention that your claim is borderline strawman, saved by the word "if". > >> Or if you are refering to that *one thin dime* not coming from their own > >> pocket, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > interest in paying the way for anyone who feels they can raise kids without > *spending one thin dime*. Why would I take offense over you excercising your rights? > Mrs Indyguy > > >> Mrs Indyguy > >> (not holding her breathe) > >> > >> >> Mrs Indyguy >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children >> >> >without [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Your conclusion is irrelevant to the issue. Oh I disagree. You say there are places to raise children where it doesn't cost one thin dime to do so, if the places you are suggesting are riddled with disease and are dangerous than the places you might suggest wouldn't be of any use to anyone. >> >> And if you put on your thinking cap, for just a moment, you may realize >> >that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >"Free", in my mind, means without obligation. Money need not be part of such >obligation. Ok than answer the question.... Exactly where can a parent care for their children without them spending one thin dime? >> >> They depend on the generosity of countires, like the USA, for many of >> >their [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Argumentum ab annis. Why don't you just answer the question? >> "In the beginning, God created man >> >and saw that it was good. He realized that man could not survive without [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I dance around NO issue. Then answer the question. >> >> If you are under the impression a parent can just claim squaters rights >on [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >lead to another unacceptable proposition. Not to mention that your claim is >borderline strawman, saved by the word "if". All I was trying to do was figure out just wha/wheret you meant when you said parents can care for their children without it costing oen thin dime. Since you wouldn't answer my question I was throwing out possibilities. If you'd have answered the question to begin with this wouln't have been necessary. >> >> Or if you are refering to that *one thin dime* not coming from their >own [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Why would I take offense over you excercising your rights? Because some people subscribe to the whole *it takes a village* mentality, I don't, and didn't know if you did. Mrs Indyguy >> Mrs Indyguy >> >> >> Mrs Indyguy >> >> (not holding her breathe) >> >> >> >> >> Mrs Indyguy > >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their children > >> >> >without [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > disease and are dangerous than the places you might suggest wouldn't be of any > use to anyone. Again, it is irrelevant to the issue. The fact remains that there ARE such places; not to mention that it is possible to raise a child ANYWHERE without spending any money. > >> >> And if you put on your thinking cap, for just a moment, you may realize > >> >that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Ok than answer the question.... Exactly where can a parent care for their > children without them spending one thin dime? ANYWHERE. > >> >> They depend on the generosity of countires, like the USA, for many of > >> >their [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Why don't you just answer the question? First of all, you are attempting to invalidate my claim due to a time difference; hence my response. Secondly, I DID answer your question. I have no control over you failing to see it. > >> "In the beginning, God created man > >> >and saw that it was good. He realized that man could not survive without [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Then answer the question. Answer what question? > >> >> If you are under the impression a parent can just claim squaters rights > >on [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > parents can care for their children without it costing oen thin dime. Since you > wouldn't answer my question Untrue. I DID answer your question. > I was throwing out possibilities. If you'd have > answered the question to begin with this wouln't have been necessary. I did. (see above) > >> >> Or if you are refering to that *one thin dime* not coming from their > >own [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Because some people subscribe to the whole *it takes a village* mentality, I > don't, and didn't know if you did. Well, rest assured that I do NOT. > Mrs Indyguy > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> >> > >> >> >> Mrs Indyguy > > >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their > children [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > places; not to mention that it is possible to raise a child ANYWHERE without > spending any money. Please tell us how to raise a child in anywhere, USA, without spending any money - inquiring minds want to know - and I'd like to see specifics for providing: 1. shelter 2. food 3. medical care 4. utilities like electricity, running water, heat 5. clothing 6. education 7. transportation when necessary all "without spending any money" as you claim, just above. <snip repetitive nonsense where Chris tries to not answer the question by claiming that he already has> >>Again, it is irrelevant to the issue. The fact remains that there ARE such >>places; not to mention that it is possible to raise a child ANYWHERE without [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > <snip repetitive nonsense where Chris tries to not answer the question by > claiming that he already has> What part of "an irrelevant issue" is so hard for your feeble feminist brain to comprehend? YOU are responsible for your spawn. YOU! Whether it costs you nothing or a million bucks, YOU are responsible for YOUR spawn. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ > > > >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their > > children [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > all "without spending any money" as you claim, just above. Hint: ALL of the above tasks can be accomplished without the involvement of ANY money. Your question is tantamount to asking how one can get their nose picked without spending any money. Ever hear of the concept of labor? How about trade? Last I checked, such activities are STILL legal. I got my carpets cleaned without spending a single red cent. How do you suppose that can be? > <snip repetitive nonsense where Chris tries to not answer the question by > claiming that he already has> In your WILDEST dreams! > > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > news:yNbDc.1808$6r1.980@fed1read06... <snip> > > > Again, it is irrelevant to the issue. The fact remains that there ARE > such [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I got my carpets cleaned without spending a single red cent. How do you > suppose that can be? I asked for specifics - given your inability to answer, I have to come to the conclusion that you are not one of those people with an "IQ better than a worm". > > <snip repetitive nonsense where Chris tries to not answer the question by > > claiming that he already has> > > In your WILDEST dreams! > > > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:yNbDc.1808$6r1.980@fed1read06... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I asked for specifics - given your inability to answer, I have to come to the > conclusion that you are not one of those people with an "IQ better than a worm". Conclusion based upon a false premise. > > > <snip repetitive nonsense where Chris tries to not answer the question by > > > claiming that he already has> > > > > In your WILDEST dreams! >"Moon Shyne" .......................... >> Please tell us how to raise a child in anywhere, USA, without spending any >> money - inquiring minds want to know - and I'd like to see specifics for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >about trade? Last I checked, such activities are STILL legal. >I got my carpets cleaned without spending a single red cent. ===== Were the carpets free? ===== >> >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their >children [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >places; not to mention that it is possible to raise a child ANYWHERE without >spending any money. Alrighty then...... How? MS asked for specifics so I won't bore you with repetition. How about just answering this time right off the bat and no more beating around the bush. <snip of the rest of the crapolla> Thanks Mrs Indyguy > >> >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their > >children [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > repetition. How about just answering this time right off the bat and no more > beating around the bush. Your question is typical of someone who just can't get outside the box. Suggestion: start asking around, and I am sure (assuming that you ask those with an IQ better than a worm) that you will get your answer. > <snip of the rest of the crapolla> > > Thanks > Mrs Indyguy >> >> >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their >> >children [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > >Your question is typical of someone who just can't get outside the box. Oh please. >Suggestion: start asking around, and I am sure (assuming that you ask those >with an IQ better than a worm) that you will get your answer. I want you to answer. I don't care how Pee Wee Herman or anyone else would raise their kids without spending any money. You made the claim now back it up with how you could do it, before you loose the rest of your credibility. And please spare me how you bartered to get your carpets cleaned. Tell me how you house, feed, clothe, transport, educate, and provide dental andmedical care for a child without spending any money. If you are implying this can all be done by the barter system, *anywhere* in the USA, you are either naive or way too idealistic. Mrs Indyguy >> <snip of the rest of the crapolla> >> >> Thanks >> Mrs Indyguy <snip> > >> >Again, it is irrelevant to the issue. The fact remains that there ARE > >such [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > done by the barter system, *anywhere* in the USA, you are either naive or way > too idealistic. What I'm wondering is if Chris lives his entire life by barter, or if he just expects the mother of his child to raise his child by barter. Do you have to pay income taxes if you live by barter? Seems to me that I read somewhere that you have to declare the value of barter on your taxes.............. Teach wrote: ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >What I'm wondering is if Chris lives his entire life by barter, or if he >just expects the mother of his child to raise his child by barter. Good question, Teach. I wonder if Chris will shock us all and actually answer it. LOL >Do you have to pay income taxes if you live by barter? Seems to me that I >read somewhere that you have to declare the value of barter on your >taxes.............. I'm not sure. I remember seeing a movie with Tony Randal as an IRS agent that goes out to a farm where the family lives by barter and tries to get them to pin point $$ amounts so they can be taxed. Of course the movie was made in the late 50's or early 60's, and we all know trying to barter one's entire existence in todays world is pretty close to impossible. Mrs Indyguy > Teach wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > late 50's or early 60's, and we all know trying to barter one's entire > existence in todays world is pretty close to impossible. In your opinion. > Mrs Indyguy > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > read somewhere that you have to declare the value of barter on your > taxes.............. Ignoratio elenchi. > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Ignoratio elenchi. I don't think so, Chris. You best check out the tax code, because I'm sure that I read somewhere that the value of barter has to be included in your taxes. BTW, have you told the mother of the child you are being forced to support that she should stop her money-grubbing ways, and begin supporting the child and herself through barter? > > > <snip> > > > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > I don't think so, Chris. That's EXACTLY what it is. Such topic is irrelevant to the discussion. > You best check out the tax code, because I'm sure > that I read somewhere that the value of barter has to be included in your > taxes. I don't disagree; it's just irrelevant to the discussion. > BTW, have you told the mother of the child you are being forced to > support that she should stop her money-grubbing ways, and begin supporting > the child and herself through barter? ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >read somewhere that you have to declare the value of barter on your >taxes.............. As taken from http://www.irs.gov/publications/p525/ar02.html#d0e3956 : "Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. If you exchange services with another person and you both have agreed ahead of time as to the value of the services, that value will be accepted as fair market value unless the value can be shown to be otherwise." > ><snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > of the services, that value will be accepted as fair market value > unless the value can be shown to be otherwise." That's what I thought--I was hoping you'd catch this one, because I was pretty sure you'd know. <smile> >> ><snip> >> > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >That's what I thought--I was hoping you'd catch this one, because I was >pretty sure you'd know. <smile> However, to be fair, bartering can be done with no tax consequence. If the barter was goods for goods, only the difference in fair market value is reported as income/loss. If the barter was services for goods, the fair market value of the goods is income to the recipient of the goods and the fair market value of the services is income to the recipient of the services. The recipient of the services can deduct the value of the goods to arrive at income/loss. if the fair market value of income produced by barter does not exceed $25,100 (using 2003 deductions, exemptions, and child tax credit for a single-parent household with one child) and no other income is reported, there would be no tax due. I arrived at this figure thusly: $25,100 AGI, which would include barter income less: $10,000 Standard deduction, head of household less: $6,100 Exemptions claimed which would be 2 x $3,050 leaves: $9,000 Taxable Income $996 Tax using tax tables less: $996 Child Tax Credit (up to $1,000 per eligible child) leaves: $0 Taxes due Given that many families survive on less than $25,100, it is possible that a bartering arrangement for everything yields no cash outlay to include taxes. However, probability is next to nil. The number of deals that must be struck would be mindstaggering. Not to mention that the one living on barter alone would have to possess a shrewdness this is misused trying to just survive. It would not be a parent who wanted the best for their child to be sure. This level of shrewdness could cause an income that would put Donald Trump and Bill Gates to shame. Hence, why would a parent DO it this way if they had the ABILITY to do it BETTER? This, by the way, WITHOUT child support. > ><snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > of the services, that value will be accepted as fair market value > unless the value can be shown to be otherwise." And the "fair market value" of such service is the service rendered in exchange. :) > >> >> >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their > >> >children [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > And please spare me how you bartered to get your carpets cleaned. Who mentioned bartering? > Tell me how > you house, feed, clothe, transport, educate, and provide dental andmedical care > for a child without spending any money. Tell me how it is possible to stay balanced on a unicycle. > If you are implying this can all be > done by the barter system, *anywhere* in the USA, you are either naive or way > too idealistic. False dilemma. > Mrs Indyguy > > > >> <snip of the rest of the crapolla> > >> > >> Thanks > >> Mrs Indyguy Chris shuffled around with: >> I want you to answer. I don't care how Pee Wee Herman or anyone else would >> raise their kids without spending any money. You made the claim now back [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Who mentioned bartering? Alright Chris, either answer how anyone can raise their children without spending any money anywhere or just drop it. Mrs Indyguy > Chris shuffled around with: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Alright Chris, either answer how anyone can raise their children without > spending any money anywhere or just drop it. He can't, Indy. Chris doesn't really contribute anything substantial--he flashes off angry statements, but never backs them up. When he's challenged, he gives such sillly little answers as "strawman," "ignoratio elenchi," or other nonsense that, I guess, are supposed to invalidate the questions so they don't have to be answered. I wonder if this technique has saved him a penny of the child support that he so resents paying. > > Chris shuffled around with: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > He can't, Indy. Translation: It is impossible to raise a child without spending money. Uhuh. > Chris doesn't really contribute anything substantial-- Well thank you for your opinion. > he > flashes off angry statements, In your opinion. > but never backs them up. Nor will I "back up" the claim that the sun rises in the east. > When he's > challenged, he gives such sillly little answers as "strawman," "ignoratio > elenchi," "Silly" in YOUR opinion. Irrelevant. > or other nonsense Such as? > that, I guess, are supposed to invalidate the > questions so they don't have to be answered. I wonder if this technique > has saved him a penny of the child support that he so resents paying. I wonder if you even know what you are talking about. > > > Chris shuffled around with: > > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > I wonder if you even know what you are talking about. Wonder no further, Chris. I have tried to engage in conversations with you, but, as soon as we get to a question you don't choose to answer, the discussion ends, and the useless comments begin. The odd thing is that I agree with some of the things you say. I think it is extremely unfair for a woman to decide to force fatherhood on a man, and never be required to contribute a penny of support herself, while the man is forced into servitude! I just can't understand how your unkind comments and one-liners to people who really try to engage you in conversation do any good--except perhaps, giving you a chance to vent. How many more years until you are free from CS payments, and can get on with your life? > > > > Chris shuffled around with: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > but, as soon as we get to a question you don't choose to answer, the > discussion ends, and the useless comments begin. Which one of your comments are useless? > The odd thing is that I > agree with some of the things you say. I think it is extremely unfair for a > woman to decide to force fatherhood on a man, and never be required to > contribute a penny of support herself, while the man is forced into > servitude! Why is it odd that you agree with the truth? > I just can't understand how your unkind comments "Unkind"? > and one-liners > to people who really try to engage you in conversation do any good--except > perhaps, giving you a chance to vent. How many more years until you are > free from CS payments, and can get on with your life? Teach wrote: >He can't, Indy. Chris doesn't really contribute anything substantial--he >flashes off angry statements, but never backs them up. When he's >challenged, he gives such sillly little answers as "strawman," "ignoratio >elenchi," or other nonsense that, I guess, are supposed to invalidate the >questions so they don't have to be answered. Got ya. I thought at one time he was somewhat reasonable, perhaps it was another Chris. I wonder if this technique >has saved him a penny of the child support that he so resents paying. LOL. Mrs Indyguy >Chris shuffled around with: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Alright Chris, either answer how anyone can raise their children without >spending any money anywhere or just drop it. ==== I'm guessing you'll have to go first :) ==== >Mrs Indyguy >>Alright Chris, either answer how anyone can raise their children without >>spending any money anywhere or just drop it. >==== >I'm guessing you'll have to go first :) LOL, it appears that he has. Lucky me. :) Mrs Indyguy >==== >> >>Mrs Indyguy >>>Alright Chris, either answer how anyone can raise their children without >>>spending any money anywhere or just drop it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Mrs Indyguy ==== He was a lot more fun to be around when he kept his comments to: Yep, Nope, You bet. Right. HA! ==== ==== >>>Mrs Indyguy >> >> >> >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their >> >> >children [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > >Who mentioned bartering? Okay, let's take bartering out of the equation. That leaves receiving gifts (goods or services), stealing, and being 100% self-sufficient. I'm willing to be corrected if there are other options. Gifts cost someone time and/or money... and to a professional, time spent with you may bear a monetary cost in opportunity cost. It would be difficult to get a gift of services from a doctor, for instance, without it costing the doctor something, be it time not spent with a paying customer or materials used (i.e. thread for stitching). Living off the land is a definite option... given there being any unclaimed land on which it could be done. Picking berries, if on someone else's land, is stealing. If on your land, how did you get it? Has it been in the family since settler days so that, even if it was gifted to you, it cost no one any money? Are taxes due on this land? I don't know of any unclaimed land in the USA (and you claim that one can live ANYWHERE without spending one thin dime... which is probably true as stated because it costs much more) and, if you do, why are you wasting your time posting on a newsgroup when you could be claiming that land? But being 100% self-sufficient and taking good care of a child would necessitate that you have knowledge of skilled trades such as medicine. How did you get this knowledge? College isn't free and books to learn from aren't either. Or are pre-Davey Crocket expenses excluded from our formula? >> Tell me how >> you house, feed, clothe, transport, educate, and provide dental andmedical [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >False dilemma. Then tell us HOW if you know. Wouldn't it be wonderful if your knowledge saved just ONE man from spending a cent on his child through his child's mother? >> Mrs Indyguy >> > >> >> <snip of the rest of the crapolla> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Mrs Indyguy ....................................... >>Who mentioned bartering? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >books to learn from aren't either. Or are pre-Davey Crocket expenses >excluded from our formula? ========== ROFL! (You're really enjoying this, aren't you? :-) ========== > >> >> >> >> >> >> >I might add that folks all around the globe care for their > >> >> >children [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > Okay, let's take bartering out of the equation. Why? > That leaves receiving > gifts (goods or services), stealing, and being 100% self-sufficient. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that one can live ANYWHERE without spending one thin dime... which is > probably true It IS true. > as stated because it costs much more) and, if you do, > why are you wasting your time posting on a newsgroup when you could be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > necessitate that you have knowledge of skilled trades such as > medicine. How did you get this knowledge? How did the FIRST physician get this knowledge? > College isn't free and > books to learn from aren't either. Or are pre-Davey Crocket expenses > excluded from our formula? Huh? > >> Tell me how > >> you house, feed, clothe, transport, educate, and provide dental andmedical [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Then tell us HOW if you know. Non sequitur. Your previous statement was a false dilemma........ period. > Wouldn't it be wonderful if your > knowledge saved just ONE man from spending a cent on his child through [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> >> Thanks > >> >> Mrs Indyguy <snippers> > Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to > hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > if you can do it yourself, but being able to do it yourself ensures > that you and your child will be okay. A lot of this depends on where you live, I guess. In PA, if you get another job they can start garnishing from the second paycheck. That has happened to me twice!! And it wasn't like I quit my real job and got another, I got a second job to try and help make ends meet. Heh, lot of good that did me. I called, and the response I got was pretty neat. When they see another job, they don't wait to see if it is a second job, they just automatically start witholding from that one. Oh, and just in case, they keep witholding from your other job as well, *until* you contact them. You don't get that money back, either. Around Christmastime most years I pick up a second job for a few months for extra cash. I make it a point to call the enforcement office BEFORE I even get a paycheck, so they'll leave it alone. short ><snippers> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >case, they keep witholding from your other job as well, *until* you contact >them. You don't get that money back, either. Seems to me that you have paid more than the court ordered as a second withholding is not a new order. I can't see how not refunding that, in cash or by way of a credit, is legal. >Around Christmastime most years I pick up a second job for a few months for >extra cash. I make it a point to call the enforcement office BEFORE I even >get a paycheck, so they'll leave it alone. > >short > I am new to the board and desperately seeking help. I chased around my ex > for 6 years and finally got a court order against him through the county > but they would not go back to the time I actually filed for support, only > from the time they found him - how do I go about suing him for the 6 years > he "disappeared"? Just find some maggot feminazi group (an internet search will bring up loads of em'), and they will instruct you on how to pursue your dirty deed! What is wrong with everyone? I thought this was a message board a person could get help with some questions. I got a lot of negative feed back. What the heck is wrong with trying to get some help in raising my kids - which are not just mine - they are mine and his - he who decided drugs and alcohol were more important than his kids so he disappears for 6 years and I work two jobs making sure my kids can have a decent life. Now he is remarried and so am I - my husband pays child support and my ex lives however he wants to live with no responsibility to his children. I was just shocked at the negative feed back. I have a good job and work hard so didn't give me crap about sitting back trying to live off him. I just want to make sure my kids will get a chance for a better life by going to college. I know life isn't fair but I do know I should make him accountable. > What is wrong with everyone? I thought this was a message board a person > could get help with some questions. I got a lot of negative feed back. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > college. I know life isn't fair but I do know I should make him > accountable. What is the end result? Exactly what is it you desire? Phil #3 > What is wrong with everyone? Maybe we should start with you......want the list? > I thought this was a message board a person > could get help with some questions. You thought wrong. >I got a lot of negative feed back. So? > What the heck is wrong with trying to get some help in raising my kids - > which are not just mine - they are mine and his - he who decided drugs and > alcohol were more important than his kids so he disappears for 6 years and > I work two jobs making sure my kids can have a decent life. We are not responsible for your poor decision making > Now he is > remarried and so am I - my husband pays child support and my ex lives [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > college. I know life isn't fair but I do know I should make him > accountable. Free hint for the clueless......a college education is NOT a right or entitlement. Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this then I would feel very sorry for your children. You brought those children into this world ... you should give them every opportunity to have the most successful life they can possibly have. That includes giving them a college education. For your information, as long as it is a Settlement Agreement, forcing a parent to provide a college education is possible. > > What is wrong with everyone? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Free hint for the clueless......a college education is NOT a right or > entitlement. > Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this then > I would feel very sorry for your children. You brought those children into > this world ... you should give them every opportunity to have the most > successful life they can possibly have. That includes giving them a college > education. How in hell does a parent "give" a child a college education? Money does not buy intelligence or motivation to peruse a college degree even if a court thinks it can! > > Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this > then [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not buy intelligence or motivation to peruse a college degree even if a > court thinks it can! Bob, don't you know that all men have an unlimited money supply to pay for whatever the child and CP needs. If you do not know that you are an ignorant man that is not living up to his parental responsibilities. Feel sorry for my children, then, because I believe that teaching them that life is not a series of hand-outs best prepares them to have a successful life. Teaching them how to work for what is desired is a lesson that will affect all areas of their lives, not just their incomes. This is not to say I won't HELP with things like college, but only if I see them helping themselves. I am thankful my parents did not pay for my college education. Not only did it mean I waited until I was really ready for it before I went, but I also knew the dollar value of what not taking a course, and the studying involved, seriously would cost me. You are wrong that a college education is a right. The option to pursue one is. No longer is a family's financial standing a barrier to college with the advent of guaranteed student loans, but I'd still encourage my children to avoid borrowing as much as possible. It is not a crime to start college at an age older than 18. I wil never ask my ex to help the children with college expenses. That is between him and them. They DO have a relationship with him that does not include me... and I will not try to be in the middle of it. >Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this then >I would feel very sorry for your children. You brought those children into [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> Free hint for the clueless......a college education is NOT a right or >> entitlement. > Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this then > I would feel very sorry for your children. You brought those children into > this world ... you should give them every opportunity to have the most > successful life they can possibly have. That includes giving them a college > education. Access to a college education is a right. Having a college education gift wrapped and laid at your feet is not. There are scholarships, loans, and jobs available, si it isn't like anyone does not have access to a college education. I do not see why that is even in question. > For your information, as long as it is a Settlement Agreement, forcing a > parent to provide a college education is possible. If forcing parents to pay for college for their children were done across the board, and every parent had the same requirement, that might be considered fair. Or, if we are only looking at divorced parents, both parents were ordered to pay into a college fund each month from the date of divorce--and the payments were garnished from their paychecks, then it might be almost ok. But when only the NCP is forced to pay, then it is NOT ok. And that is what the complaints are about. > > "LouKing" <loukingren@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:aec40a824104f3f136828bc35906a812@localhost.talkaboutparenting.com... > > > What is wrong with everyone? > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Free hint for the clueless......a college education is NOT a right or > > entitlement. > > Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this > then [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > jobs available, si it isn't like anyone does not have access to a college > education. I do not see why that is even in question. I believe going to college is an opportunity, not a right. If it were a right, everyone would get a college degree. Here are a few statisitics from several sources that breakdown college education facts. 86.5% of high school students complete high school. (National Center for Education) 62% of high school completers enroll in college. (National Center for Education) 59% of college enrollers graduate in 6 years. (NCAA Div-1 All-Student Graduation Rate) 31.6% of high school students complete a 4 year degree. (I did the math) Out of 1,000 HS students 865 graduate, 536 enter college, and 316 graduate within 6 years. > > For your information, as long as it is a Settlement Agreement, forcing a > > parent to provide a college education is possible. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be almost ok. But when only the NCP is forced to pay, then it is NOT ok. > And that is what the complaints are about. At the risk of being too esoteric, the complaint I have goes beyond only the NCP being required to pay CS to an adult child attending school. The student is hurt in multiple ways by the current system. Because CS drives up the out-of-pocket cost of education (the EFC) the student needs to take out higher student loans. If the CP uses the CS for care and maintenance, rather than tuition, the student must take out higher student loans. If the CP doesn't pass the education tax credits on to the student, the student must take out higher student loans. If the CP refuses to take out a Parent Loan, the student must take out higher student loans. The Appeals Court in my state has clearly defined that CS for pre-18 children is for care and maintenance. And Post-18 CS is defined as advancing the state's interest in an educated populace. The problem I found seen is CP's don't understand that distinction and the student gets hurt in the long run for all the reasons I listed above. >Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this then >I would feel very sorry for your children. You brought those children into >this world ... you should give them every opportunity to have the most >successful life they can possibly have. That includes giving them a college >education. ==== Hey, could you send that message to my parents? I had about 30k in student loans and thought *I* was responsible for it. Didn't realize my parents owed me that money. Cool. Maybe I should have them secure my rights to the money for student loans with a life insurance policy. They are in their 70s now. ==== ==== > In article <Hi2Kc.12251$dg6.967@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>, Rebecca Floyd > says... > > > >Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this then > >I would feel very sorry for your children. You brought those children into > >this world ... you should give them every opportunity to have the most > >successful life they can possibly have. That includes giving them a college > >education. > ==== > Hey, could you send that message to my parents? I had about 30k in student loans > and thought *I* was responsible for it. Didn't realize my parents owed me that > money. Cool. Maybe I should have them secure my rights to the money for student > loans with a life insurance policy. They are in their 70s now. I was one of seven kids, and we have 13 degrees between us, none of them paid for by our parents (they could not have afforded it anyway. This entitlement crap really irks me.......more proof of the corruption being talk in guvmint schools. > ==== > ==== > > Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this then > I would feel very sorry for your children. You brought those children into > this world ... you should give them every opportunity to have the most > successful life they can possibly have. That includes giving them a college > education. Hey MORON......a college education is not a RIGHT.....I feel sorry for yoour children being raised in a 'entitlement' mentality. You should teach your children to be responsible as ADULTS..... > > For your information, as long as it is a Settlement Agreement, forcing a > parent to provide a college education is possible. > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message > news:10f7qp1qqp0hoe7@corp.supernews.com... > > > > "LouKing" <loukingren@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:aec40a824104f3f136828bc35906a812@localhost.talkaboutparenting.com... > > > What is wrong with everyone? > > > > Maybe we should start with you......want the list? > > > > > I thought this was a message board a person > > > could get help with some questions. > > > > You thought wrong. > > > > >I got a lot of negative feed back. > > > > So? > > > > > What the heck is wrong with trying to get some help in raising my kids - > > > which are not just mine - they are mine and his - he who decided drugs > and > > > alcohol were more important than his kids so he disappears for 6 years > and > > > I work two jobs making sure my kids can have a decent life. > > > > We are not responsible for your poor decision making > > > > > Now he is > > > remarried and so am I - my husband pays child support and my ex lives > > > however he wants to live with no responsibility to his children. I was > > > just shocked at the negative feed back. I have a good job and work hard > > > so didn't give me crap about sitting back trying to live off him. I > just > > > want to make sure my kids will get a chance for a better life by going > to > > > college. I know life isn't fair but I do know I should make him > > > accountable. > > > > Free hint for the clueless......a college education is NOT a right or > > entitlement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this then > I would feel very sorry for your children. You brought those children into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For your information, as long as it is a Settlement Agreement, forcing a > parent to provide a college education is possible. --------------------- A college education is no more a right than having a huge, expensive wedding that the parents pay for is a right. If you want to give your kids every opportunity to be successful in life then teach them to work for what they get and the value of a dollar. No one should be 'forced' to pay anything for an adult over 18. ~AZ~ > > "LouKing" <loukingren@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:aec40a824104f3f136828bc35906a812@localhost.talkaboutparenting.com... > > > What is wrong with everyone? > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Free hint for the clueless......a college education is NOT a right or > > entitlement. > > Hey Jerk ... a college education is a right! If you don't believe this > then [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > A college education is no more a right than having a huge, expensive wedding > that the parents pay for is a right. Give it time, I am sure an article in the news will pop sometime in the next year where some feminist Judge forced a father to pay for an expensive wedding. Give it 3 years before we see one where the father went to jail for failure to pay for the expensive wedding. If you want to give your kids every > opportunity to be successful in life then teach them to work for what they > get and the value of a dollar. No one should be 'forced' to pay anything > for an adult over 18. > > ~AZ~ > > > "LouKing" <loukingren@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > > Free hint for the clueless......a college education is NOT a right or > > > entitlement. There is nothing wrong with that at all. The people on here that constantly give negative feedback are the ones who wouldn't know how to be a man if they tried. > What is wrong with everyone? I thought this was a message board a person > could get help with some questions. I got a lot of negative feed back. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > college. I know life isn't fair but I do know I should make him > accountable. > There is nothing wrong with that at all. The people on here that constantly > give negative feedback are the ones who wouldn't know how to be a man if > they tried. Too bad, bimbo, it's not up to sorry a.s c.nts to tell MEN what it takes to be a man. You wouldn't know a MAN if he turned you over his knee and spanked your sorry a.s until next thursday. Bob >>What is wrong with everyone? I thought this was a message board a person >>could get help with some questions. I got a lot of negative feed back. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>college. I know life isn't fair but I do know I should make him >>accountable. SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > There is nothing wrong with that at all. The people on here that constantly > give negative feedback are the ones who wouldn't know how to be a man if > they tried. Another 'feminitwit" and a lame attempt to define a 'man' YAWN > > "LouKing" <loukingren@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:aec40a824104f3f136828bc35906a812@localhost.talkaboutparenting.com... > > What is wrong with everyone? I thought this was a message board a person > > could get help with some questions. I got a lot of negative feed back. > > What the heck is wrong with trying to get some help in raising my kids - > > which are not just mine - they are mine and his - he who decided drugs and > > alcohol were more important than his kids so he disappears for 6 years and > > I work two jobs making sure my kids can have a decent life. Now he is > > remarried and so am I - my husband pays child support and my ex lives > > however he wants to live with no responsibility to his children. I was > > just shocked at the negative feed back. I have a good job and work hard > > so didn't give me crap about sitting back trying to live off him. I just > > want to make sure my kids will get a chance for a better life by going to > > college. I know life isn't fair but I do know I should make him > > accountable. > > > > |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.