Father Torches Car in Protest Over Child Support

Anchorage Daily News ^ | October 18, 2002 | Tataboline Brant

[BuddhaBoy]

50% responsible for what happens

Can you read? Where does this excuse the loser? You need Prozac.

[Conservative til I die]

You are closed-minded, and I dont think you are paying any attention to the points raised here at all. Sarcasm wont replace dialog, and you might consider reading the posts that you are arguing against.

I'm just having a lot of fun here, becaue the real Cletus-contingent of the conservative movement is out in full-force going bonkers over a guy who menaces his people and destroys police property is apparently being persecuted because people dare to make him to enagage his legal obligation to care for his kids. I wasn't aware child-support was some NWO plot to turn us into socialists.

There are some real ghouls on this thread.

[Roscoe]

At least he didn't kill a police officer. The nutjobs would be building him a ststue.

[Conservative til I die]

Take your head out of the sand. Smell the coffee. Wake up to the fact that divorce is an industry that is founded in Court bias towards allowing mother's custody and child support in a great majority of cases, regardless of the woman's qualifications to be a good parent.

I wonder if the Illuminati or the Bildebergers are involved.

[Rebelbase]

That looks like an old 300TD, probably 15-20 years old, worth maybe $4000-5000 in good condition.

Man, that father is living high on the hog.

[BuddhaBoy]

If I HAD children, I trust I would name them.

What a silly semantic to emphasize, simply because you disagree. Relax, bucko.

[Bella_Bru]

You, a liberal?!?!?! ROFLMAO! That's rich!

[Conservative til I die]

To: (use semi-colons to separate multiple recipients) RogerFGay Your Reply: (HTML auto-detected, see help for more information) I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition. Loose lips sink ships. In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Father Torches Car in Protest Over Child Support, RogerFGay wrote: I know that a man who torches his own car in somebody else's parking lot, then kicks out a window in a patrol car is a man who has no business being around children. No, you don't know that. He could be a much more loving and a much better parent than you'll ever be.

Glad to see you're not knee-jerk defending this guy with zero facts other than 1) he owed child support, 2) torched his Mercedes, and 3) has threatened child welfare agencies before. Just like you said you wouldn't.

[RogerFGay]

At least he didn't kill a police officer. The nutjobs would be building him a ststue.

Pity your brain isn't as big as your mouth (so to speak).

[BuddhaBoy]

Whether you know it or not, this is a serious subject, so if you want to have fun, why not pick a FUN thread for your umwelcome sarcasm?

I maintain you have taken the entire thread out of context, just so that you could practice your HTML.

Then you suggest that people are ghouls for not agreing with you.

Maybe YOU are the type of Conservative people should fear.

[sinkspur]

The destruction of marriage by dangling divorce incentives in front of the women and the systematic unjust treatment of men who've fallen into the divorce trap are each just part of the picture going on here.

Oh, please, Red! For every story you can recount about a woman just up and walking out on her husband, I can get right back at you with women who have put up with wife beaters, or drunks, or men who work until 10:00 at night and on weekends, or who bang the old girlfriend when she comes to town.

This pity party for men who marry, who know what they're getting into when they marry, then end up having to pay child support because the marriage doesn't work out (and it DOES take two to make a marriage work; there are usually no saints in these relationships) is very strange. For every guy that gets screwed by the system, there are five who skate on their responsibilities. It's unfortunate that some men have to suffer for the actions of the louts.

[rolling_stone]

No I am aware of the current state of child support right down to the formulas....still I have seen cases where the better attorney can help defeat justice..such as hiding income, assets, etc, getting someone to admit paternity without a DNA test etc...I am also aware the slippery slope of child support is a game for some which I posted at #50:

http://www.paternityfraud.com/

[RogerFGay]

I think I've figured it out. You do have a reading comprehension problem. There's no way to solve that by arguing.

[Roscoe]

Curious choice of hero.

[Rebelbase]

If you don't have kids and have never paid court ordered child support, how are you qualified to comment reasonably and rationally on this thread?

[Tall_Texan]

Department of Revenue???

With a name like that, you figure they'll get the money anyway they can.

[mvpel]

So what did the judge say when you pointed out that you were employed at a minimum wage job? What did he say when you pointed out that the $5k was a debt incurred when he had a job, and that normally quitting your job doesn't get you out of debts? What did he say when you asked how much your ex was paying the lawyer?

You don't have to be "given" a recourse in order to have one, or take one.

[RogerFGay]

I don't believe "the better lawyer wins" is an accurate description of the problem. I also think you must have extremely good eyesight if you can see a lot of hidden assets. If it doesn't take such good eyesight, they weren't that well hidden.

[Iron Eagle]

The best "authorities" on child rearing are always people who don't have any of their own...

The best way to avoid substantive debate is a misdirection predicated on attacking the messanger, not the message.

I do have have kids of my own. I raise them quite well with my wife of 10 years. And, I have 20 nieces and nephews, and not all of them are as well raised, but some are.

In my family, three of my four brothers are divorced, and at least two of them are very bitter men because of the child support they must pay. (They view it as cash payments to some bitch they hate, who won't use it on the kids). They might be right.

The problem is, of course, tht they are making those payments because they had children, who need and deserve support. Now, it may well be thet both of thos wives are real bitches, total jerks, complete users, cheaters, etc. Well, perhaps choosing to marry them, commit for life, and have children, was not a great idea. You see, the problem here is that virtually none of these divorces has one player totally at fault, and one innocent victim. (Hell, even if you were the model husband, and she left you for a drug convict, you at least have to be blamed for poor investigation and judgment.) Marriage isn't for everyone, and perhaps too many dive right in. And that's fine, it's a free country. But if you are fool enough to get married without understanding the depth of the decision and committment, then at least try to figure out the situation before bringing an innocent party into the matter.

One poster had it right, when you choose to use the State's tool of marriage to have the benefits of same inure to you, the state has an interest, whether you like it or not. But there is no question that the state has an interest in the children who, if not cared by the adults, becomes a ward of the state. (By the way, we are all the state. That means your kid lives off my money.)

Children from divorced homes who are raised by sigle parents are a burden on the state. They are less educated, more prone to crime and violence, and in general, they exact costs from the state. But more impoprtantly, many simply miss the opportunity to be raised in an environment with a mother and father selflessly dedicated to the kids. (That's the real cost). And as may wife and I are the youngest of 7 siblings in each family, we can sure see the difference between the kids of divorce, and the kids raised in these stable homes.

I am sorry some of you out there had real bad marriages. And I am really sorry that some of you are paying through the nose to some woman you believe is 100% at fault. But, it ain't the kids fault, and it sure aint the state's fault that the two of you shouldn't have gotten together, and damned sure shouldn't have had kids. Quit your belly aching, pay what you can, and be the best damn dad you can be no matter the circumstances. And stop scapegoating the state.

[RogerFGay]

Curious choice of hero.

Incomprehensable comment.