Posted on 07/06/2002 2:52:05 PM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
Thanks... glad you liked it ;~D
No way! Makes too much sense. We need to elect women with your views to Congress. That may be the only way out of this mess.
I also think support should be reasonable and with regard to assets it should be as fair and just as possible.
No "givvies" just because you are a poor woman who's husband "made you cheat" by working too late. And likewise, no bias for men who can't keep themselves from juping in the sack with the babysitter.
Nu-uh.
Equality and fairness before the law.
I mean, as it is a woman with custody can starve your child and spend "HER" support check on drugs or anything she pleases.
There is no control built in here at all to ensure the child is indeed being supported.
And to think, you imply that I am a "knothead"
Hey, I am not out to slander all women. Nor an I out to provide others with excuses for cheating on them or divorcing them.
I want fairness in our courts.
That's it. No gender bias here.
It's already that way here in NC.....we fill out a costs form and it is divided between the parents,support going to to the one raising the child/children....guess thats why I never saw any bias in favor of women.
And you have the nerve to accuse "men" (I love that BROAD term) of wanting to "Kill You" and Women in general?
Lady, I am sorry to say this but.. You're nuts.
There is no control built in here at all to ensure the child is indeed being supported.
Must we bring in the freaky fringe here? Most divorces are not in fact, angels versus satan him/herself, they just try to make it seem that way when the heat is turned up.
I agree that the kid should be with loving parents, and I think we should spend a lot less time arguing about who is "better" or "worse" and more time sharing the raising of the child that was created. This is an impossible situation. It is why marriage is not supposed to end except in extreme situations where the devil is clear.
Most of the time their is no devil. But each side now chooses to describe the other as the devil incarnate in court, while outside there is a toddler who is living proof that the couple used to like each other.
The marriage ending (or failing to begin) is when the distaster started. Not in court.
My angle? - was I too obtuse? - What is wrong with what I said?
What's "freaky" about it? It's the truth. There ARE no controls to ensure that your child is actually supported.
And as far as the he said / she said business goes I think I would rely a whole lot less on hersay and a whole lot more on facts. Like:
Who left? Any Police Reports? History of substance abuse? Criminal history in general? Been divorced 5 previous times? Did you steal or misappropriate money to finance your "escape" from this evil spouse? Did a PI catch you in the sack?
Things which are a little more black and white than: "Am not!" "Are so!" "Am not!"
And if fault can't be determined for some reason, then divide assets fairly. No givvies.
But if it can be determined, then that person caused the problem and they should get the short end of the stick.
Naw... Congress would drive me nuts... a system perfectly designed to make sure nothing coherent ever gets decided... It would take a benevolent dictatorship... But thanks!
Here, here. You called it correct. Its kind of like femminist affirmative action.
We all know how fair and just affirmative action can be.
Bingo.
The perfect term for those who carry their politics between their legs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.