[demkicker]

Wrong on all accounts. First of all, I am a woman. Second of all, my argument is completely logical. If you've got a problem with millionaires having to pay more child support for their children than what lower or upper middle class fathers pay, you need to direct your anger toward the law.

But your "screw the rich guy" stance, to be honest, is little more than socialism.

What a fallacious statement! Am I repulsed at Randy Johnson's behavior? Yes. But I've got news for you. Child support has been paid based on a sliding scale according to income for decades. For you to call that socialism is laughable. And I don't have a screw the rich guy stance. My stance is screw Randy Johnson.

[MortMan]

My main problem with your argument, maam, is that you are advocating that Johnson forfeit his legal right not to pay day care when it was not warranted.

Note that I did not say that the mother does not have the legal right to pursue a higher child support amount - perhaps even retroactively. Absolutely, if she can convince the court, he should pay.

But, that does not mean that day care money can be substituted when day care was not paid for.

For me, I have no animus toward Johnson. I find his actions deplorable. I find his attitude deplorable. But I find his legal actions here defendable - legally, not morally.

Why do you think I'm angry, BTW?