That comment doesn't help anything. I was asking simple questions to try and find some common ground that can be worked from. I'll go first. Dead beat dads are scum. I agree. Now, what is the definition of a dead beat dad? My definition would probably be more biblical than legal. I don't think the man in the article is a dead beat dad since he is not the sperm donor nor ever took responsibility for the child. However, looking at the big picture if he had kept his **** to himself he most likely would not be in this predicament.
Apparently wtc911 does not believe that RogerFGay has any moral authority to speak about the subject of child support based upon personal issues. I am guessing that he does not disagree with the premise of the article, but the poster himself. If that is correct, then let him present his evidence, and if RogerFGay is found to be a hypocrite then the FreeRepublic Self Appointed Posting Police will hound him into oblivion as they always seem to do.
If wtc911 is willing to do the research necessary and posts it we will all jump on the pillory block and light our torches gleefully. If, however, he is conducting a personal attack to cover for a hidden agenda, such as RogerFGay is insinuating, then he needs to either 'fess up his real purpose or be banished as a troll (viking kitties, lighting, the whole bit).
Sorry, I forgot to ping you in the above response.
I recall the definition of “deadbeat dad” quite vividly. During the 1990s it was the subject of thousands of articles and news reports. It’s a guy who abandons his wife and children, can afford to support them, but simply refuses to do so. From this definition, I went to the statistics and estimated that “deadbeat dads” compose about one half of one percent of the total population of non-custodial parents.