Lawyer: Client Shot Once

ctnow.com ^ | August 16, 2002 | TINA A. BROWN

[RogerFGay]

Roger, I apologize if I come across that way. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from in regards to your claim that child support laws are unconstitutional. Your statement seems ludicrous from a conservative standpoint, and I just want to be clear where you are coming from.

The easiest and most convincing initial (partial) response I can give to that question is to provide a link to this article and this. If you're still interested, there's lots more, even a web site or two where you can educate yourself on a daily basis.

[RogerFGay]

I've already addressed the personal responsibility issue.

Where? In your statement that the government ought to just shrug and wink at hungry, impoverished children, as if doing so will shame deadbeat dads into being more personally responsible?

I'll tell you what. If you quote me accurately, I'll say yes, that's what I said.

(As an aside, if you are an author making a living at formulating and communicating your thoughts, I hope you have a night job, too.)

You probably imagine that you're winning this argument. That would give you a false sense of the world around you.

[Cultural Jihad]

The first link comes back with "The requested document does not exist on this server" and the second link is an article named "gay081202.htm". Is that your domain? mensnewsdaily.com? Guerneville is full of sexual deviants.

[RogerFGay]

The first link should be A Return to Welfare As We Knew It? The beginning of the end of child support reform.

The second link Now in Tennessee: No Legitimate Purpose Found in Child Support Law.

Men's News Daily is not MY domain. It's the name of a popular internet news site. My name is Roger F. Gay.

[FITZ]

In any event, shooting at a swat team is not the smartest move someone can make. No one here has walked a mile in this guys shoes,

It seems like there'd be a better way to handle the child support problem ---like have his wages garnered (or is it garnished?). Even if the police are in the right, there should be a way they don't back people into a tight corner especially people who had no history of violence ---it seems pretty unnecessary.

[Cultural Jihad]

Pleased to make your acquantance, Roger. I'll be glad to puruse your writings and get back to you.

[RogerFGay]

Your statement seems ludicrous from a conservative standpoint, and I just want to be clear where you are coming from.

You have not been arguing a conservative position. The "deadbeat dad" propaganda is all extremist Marxists feminazi crap. Before we get into that, I'd suggest this article. Then I should forewarn you that I'm an extremely knowledgable historian on the child support reforms in the US and elsewhere.

[Thumper1960]

When it comes to prosecuting men for the crime of being abandoned by their wives, having their children taken from them, and being ruined financially by the system (in a way from which they can never recover), they're dealing with men who have nothing more to lose -- and they're pissed.

Couple having to file personal bankruptcy because the cards and bills are all in your name, the prospect of getting a second job is idiotic and foolish. Too bad the pendulum hasn't obeyed the law of physics and swung backwards.

[Cultural Jihad]

If adultery were made illegal again and divorces were not allowed then child abandonment and father's rights wouldn't be as much of an issue in society today. Currently in California, half of the children live in broken homes.

[Thumper1960]

The law only gets involved when a parent chooses to act irresponsibly by abandoning his own children.

Bullshit! The father does not "always" abandon his child/ren. Believe it or not, sometimes the mother takes the children, leaves the father in the lurch, then demands the State force the father to pay for her actions. The State obliges because "it's the law".

It's a miracle that more fathers don't lash out and kill more often due to the government's rigid dictums.

[Cultural Jihad]

Good point. I stand corrected. No fault divorce laws should be rescinded, clearly.

[Thumper1960]

No fault divorce laws should be rescinded, clearly

THAT is something I can agree with. No-fault means it's his fault.

"Cuff him, Danno".

[Idlewise]

I am impressed with the way the discussion is being handled by all of you. No profanity and no name calling. I don't have a personal involvement in the issue but I could never endorse or understand Government involvement in such a personal and private matter such as marriage.
Domestic issues are not a government matter and this country's legal system took a wrong turn when seeking to manage this private institution between male and female.
I believe that we have developed a new government industry or money laundering system under the name of child welfare or family services. We just don't know how big it is but we need to understand how destructive it is to our culture.

[connectthedots]

I live in the United States, a country with a judicial branch that applies the law to the facts and determines what is legal and illegal.

Please tell me this is a joke. You are out of touch with reality if you really believe this, especially when a citizen is being screwed over by the government.

[river rat]

No sympathy for "deadbeat dads"...
If they won't compensate, they shouldn't copulate.

And, the ones complaining about their wives "running away" with the kids ---- tough, each guy PICKED that wife.
His bad judgement does NOT excuse him from supporting his innocent children. His "wife" or "significant other" may have wronged him by leaving -- but the kids didn't.

"Dads" should consider it the screwing they get for the screwing they got.

Semper Fi

[A. Pole]

The law only gets involved when a parent chooses to act irresponsibly by abandoning his own children.

Most of the divorces are initiated by dishonest women who want to legally turn their husbands into indentured cash cows. They also force fathers to break contact with children on the base of false accusations. This is one of the feminist methods to abolish family.

[A. Pole]

No sympathy for "deadbeat dads"... If they won't compensate, they shouldn't copulate.

I thought that "copulation" involves TWO sides. How come that it is usually man who is held responsible and woman takes the children and alimonies? It is because feminists made it so.

[Cultural Jihad]

Another good point. Regardless of why a home is broken, both parents have to made responsible for their children. That some women railroad some men is not an excuse to claim that child support laws are unconstitutional.

[A. Pole]

His "wife" or "significant other" may have wronged him by leaving -- but the kids didn't.

Yeah. This is for the children. Preventing father from seeing his children while ruining him financially and slandering him. There are women who make more money than the man, marry again and still extract excessive alimonies. For the children of course. This became a legal extortion industry.

[river rat]

I forgot to add....
It takes a pretty stupid son of a bitch, to shoot and folks with guns - and then bitch or complain when they shoot back.

Semper Fi