KD- You need to bring that out to Califoria. I haven't been through it but my significant other has and she was put through the ringer by the courts.

The reality of it is that Divorce law is very profitable for the lawyers and the judges used to be the lawyers so they love to keep the system rolling and the money flowing regardless of how unfair it is. *****es me off more than almost anything and I haven't had a divorce. What it did to my parents was enough for me.

Tickerfan, thanks for the clarification on your comments not being a response to mine. Still, as my x-husband is contributing 30% of my daughter's support, it sounds like from your earlier comments that I'm one of those you feel is "on the gravy train" and living a life of "passivity and laziness" after having "snagged him". It sounds like you feel he should not have to contribute anything to our daughter's support??? or am I misunderstanding you??? (Also FYI, I do not in any way benefit personally from the portion of her support that he contributes...it goes into a joint account that both he/I contribute to and both he/I draw on to pay her expenses.)

So, what is your rationale for why the woman should bear the full responsibility for the children and not share this responsibility with the man?

I have a very high view of women in general. I think your view of women is sad and distorted. Maybe you are in the unfortunate position to see the worst of the worst and that has distorted your view.

Still, I don't buy the men as poor stupid victims of women's maniacal schemes story. If a man is single and concerned that the woman he's thinking of having sex with might be religious and not be the type to have an abortion if the birth control fails - which is at best only 98% effective - then he should keep his penis in his pants or check that all out in advance...otherwise expect to mutally share in the responsibility for your creation if that is what comes to pass. Conversely, if a man is in a marriage and agrees to have children and is concerned that his wife might therefore require him to equally contribute both financially and with time and energy to the children's upbringing going forward and he's not prepared to do that then he should not agree to have children.

The whole idea that child support is a "gravy train" for women is wrong. Unless the man is paying 100% for the child's support, the child is still a net financial drain for the woman. So, the idea that women trick men into having children so they can benefit financially makes no sense to me. Even if my x-spouse paid 80% instead of 30%, there would still be no financial benefit to me vs being childless. There's no maniacal scheme going on here.

Rocket -

Ron Paul can kiss my ass. I've never like the guy because he is a bonafide hypocrite and you "RP Revolutioners" can go to hell. You can be the first one to go..WHERE DID ALL THESE RON PAUL TROOPS COME FROM?

Jinxx, how do you eat while you're "fired"?

You can't pay your support? Its set at the level of REQUIRED COSTS to raise a kid.

Tell me you're going to DIE if you lose your job.

Yeah, right.

Quote:

Karl, you need to actually read Ron Paul's positions in some of his literature. He has specifically said that he will phase out Medicare and Social Security over time and he will pay for those remaining on it today by means of cutting the one trillion + we spend every year on foreign interventionism. Even if you disagree on cutting out lots of our foreign interventionism spending, there are still hundreds of billions that we can all agree on that go to waste. That's just one little part of his solution to deal with Medicare and Social Security.
But you should know that, since you claim to know all of his positions.
As for him wanting to bring back gold as a currency, that is completely false. He wants to create an alternative currency to the Federal Reserve Note dollar that is based on the value of gold. Therefore, the value of this alternative currency would fluctuate based on the fluctuating value of gold.

Yes, I've read that, which is why its horse****.

First, on Medicare and OSADI (Social Security); it is a one hundred trillion dollar problem. Exiting "foreign entanglements" sounds nice but it is impossible for two reasons:

1. It doesn't free up anywhere near enough money.

2. We have no US-centric energy supply, AND IT TAKES TWENTY YEARS TO FIX THAT. You CANNOT withdraw from the global scene until and unless you have the ability to be 100% energy independant. PERIOD. To claim otherwise or do otherwise is to CAUSE the immediate destruction of the US economy - guaranteed - because as soon as you pull back the Muslims WILL hit the supplies, as they are fully aware that will quite literally KILL us.

As for something "based on the price of gold", uh, price in what? Tail, meet snake. So now we put our monetary value in the hands of international speculators? That's ****ing stupid. The only "hard money" base you can use as a nation is one that is wholly producable within your borders.

Britain and the US found this out already.

I've been over this a dozen times. THIS IS THE LAST TIME I'm going to repeat myself. You idiots who think I haven't read Ron Paul's horse**** are WRONG. I not only have read it, I've analyzed it and posted on it here in the past.

This Ron Paul crap is going to lead to outright bans. We fought this over his asinine proposals to destroy the United States when he was in the debates. DO NOT MAKE THE SAME CLAIMS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPROVEN BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO ****ING LAZY OR STUPID TO USE SEARCH AND READ THE DEBATE. Its OVER on those points and the people involved in continuing this ARE LEAVING if it continues.

There is a limit to my patience repeating myself and it absolutely has been exceeded. Your laziness is not my call to repeat myself.

It IS how you get banned.

Fran, either you're ignoring my previous posts on my situtation or you're just being plain ignorant. Either way, The Court System does NOT favor men in these cases and I would really like for you to communicate that to my Master's Degree holding, used to make $70k a year, leech **** ex-wife.

Quote:

Jinxx, how do you eat while you're "fired"?

if you don't have any savings (like most people, me NOT included) you may very well NOT eat... or you start forced selling assets, assuming you have any to sell. BUT just like a CDO there is no guarantee you're going to have a buyer and get any thing for your stuff (or the speed at which you will get it). I JUST read a story on this site about a lady living in her car after being forclosed on, no assets, no savings, only a car.

You solution is just going to take someones potential setback and make it much, much worse... that makes ZERO sense. Yeah, put them in jail, we all pay for that and then try to squeeze blood from the turnip.

Uh... no.

If you have a CHILD you have an OBLIGATION in the form of a MOUTH that needs FOOD.

If you can't manage that, then you deserve jail.

What part of "the kid needs to ****ing eat" didn't make sense before your dick came out of your pants (or your panties came off)?

Yahuw,

There is only one post directed at me from you. I didn't respond because I initially refused to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. But, if you insist...

First, I'm not going to call your x-wife and you already know that - so I assumed that part to be a retorical suggestion.

Second, you said that it's bull**** that I don't know any women who are living a life of passivity and laziness. So, okay, if you insist....name one....I mean, name one of the people that I know personally that is living a life of passivity and laziness...since you are the authority and you said that my claim is bull****.

right, because I can provide much better for the kid from jail...

Yeah... makes a lot of sense, LMFAO.

You know, in that case it's possible that none of us are eating. People CAN lose their ability to provide (even at no fault of their own *GASP*). It sure as hell doesn't mean we should put them in jail. If I became disabled should I go to jail too if I can't provide?

"You got hit by a car, you're paralyzed... **** you you have kids"

That's just asinine...

Battle of wits? What the hell are you talking about? Research, research, research..I don't need to go off on a Socrates' philosophical laced tangent to make a point. Examples are made consistently and I've made my own apart of that, yet you respond with a dead end question. You have skirted around the focal point of my message, which is that the Court system IS OVERALL GENDER BIASED. I swear you're right up there with LCruiser in regards to how fast you can two step around a subject.

Why do they call it WIC (Woman with Infant Children) not PIC (Parent with Infant Children)?

Marie, you should be paying 70% for your daughter, who I gather has decided to live with her father, she lives with him 70% of the time and with you 30% of the time. I don't see what is wrong here? Does he earn more money than you? What is the problem? Don't you feel you have the obligation to pay your part for your child?

Fran, yes, I think you misunderstood me. I most definitely regard it the responsibility of both spouses to provide for their children financially. I was going to say 50/50, but in reality my view is that both spouses should be prepared to assume the entire burden, if that's what's necessary.

My disenchantment with the legal system stems from my perception that it gives preferential treatment to women in just about every aspect of child custody and support, and in a manner that treats fathers as the fifth wheel and relegates them to the status of a mere checkbook. It also derives from my having seen award after award in which women who should have prepared themselves to be self-supporting are given the benefit many years of spousal maintenance based upon the outmoded idea that her lifestyle should not be detrimentally impacted (never mind what it does to the husband) and that women are somehow less capable of coming to grips with their new situation than their husbands are. All too frequently, moreover, child support is awarded in amounts that belie its use as a surrogate for spousal maintenance. It's very rare, for example, to see a situation in which the wife is charged with imputed income (i.e., what she is capable of earning but does not earn) in computing the spouses' relative contributions. Thus, it often occurs that the non-working spouse (most commonly the woman) benefits substantially from the fact that she was not previously required to work. I could go on, but these are some of my thoughts on the subject.

Again, I apologize that my rather brash comments appeared to be in response to you. They were not intended that way.

What an excellent Ticker for a sunny Thursday. I really enjoyed the part about children. Just because some female can't keep her knees together and then lets some guy enter her sans a jimmy, why should I have to pay one nickel for the result? Sex ed should be taught at age 10 or to 11 to females with two lines: a male wants to put it in you. By whatever means necessary. But as usual, telling the truth would be too much for Idiot Nation.

Anyway, back to "circuses" for me. The NBA Finals. The nice thing is here in Las Vegas, one can legally bet on the game. A freedom that has yet to be taken away.

Yeah well, my daughter has already been told. "Every boy in your class has exactly one thing in his mind - either now or within the next year - and that is getting in your pants and ****ing you. They will do whatever they can that's legal to accomplish that and might do things that aren't. If you say yes, whatever bad that comes of that is your responsibility. If you say no and they don't listen, kicking them in the balls is a fairly effective defensive mechanism, and then there's always Dad, who can and will kick their ass or worse."

Look Blunt it's not about you, it's about your kid.

If you make one, even if you're forced to do it at knife point, your kid still deserves to be taken care of. By you.

Our Arab friends use your argument which is why women have to go around looking like tents so as not to be blamed for arousing man's "natural viciousness".

>No doubt, Bernanke inspired the next generation of Harvard MBAs to imagine new ways to cheat and steal. He should have taken Harvard's motto, "Veritas", to heart and told the truth.


Ivy League MBA mofos are screwing this country up.

Prospektor,

I see where you are going with your math...but I don't agree. Just because my daughter lives with her Dad 70% of the time doesn't mean that I should pay 70% of her expenses. That would mean that if my daughter lives 100% of the time with me, then my x-husband should have to pay 100% of her expenses? Why does that matter? Either one of us can write checks from her expense account for her school, extended care, travel, braces, toys, clothing, etc as needed...if he needs to buy more clothing than I do because she is there more often, then he is free to write more checks. When I say 70% vs 30%, I'm not talking about the % we are withdrawling - that is based on her actual expenses at each house - I'm talking about the % that we pay in.

Yes, my x-husband currently makes more than me...at least twice as much as I do. But at the time of our divorce, it was the opposite. Yes, I think we should each pay for 50% of her expenses...I guess that is my complaint..that I am paying more when I feel he should be equally responsible for her total expenses.

Not trying to give you a hard time Marie. Hear me out though. My two children live with me approx 40% of the time. My ex. and I share custody 50/50 but I travel quite a bit and my ex-wife is pretty cool about that. I pay more than she does because they are living with her 60% percent of the time. Kids cost money and there is a lot of money that gets spent on a daily bases that doesn´t seem to get counted. I realise this and give my ex money for this reason. Then there is the time investment. While I am traveling, often to visit friends and family I am free to do what I want. My ex doesn't have the freedom to do what she pleases while she has the children. I appreciate that too. I feel giving her extra money is well spent and it goes to our children.

GENESIS

Let the Gold Donors clean up the threads. Give us veto power of stupid comments.

You shouldn't have to worry about it. Let us take responsibility for the forum.

gen, not to change the subject but when you lock down the forum it slows down the amount of information passing through it. i've noticed the amount of posts drop dramatically every time you turn it back on and that doesn't mean the quality gets better. most people on this site sees the tin foil and most don't respond. why don't you ask the other members to chastise the tin foilers to go to another site or post in the appropriate place. no poster wants to be called out and this may be more effective. my buddy has made a donation and told me about the video today. there is no way the non-donars will understand the lockdown unless you mention it on the ticker. i can't believe you would waste three hours to cleaning up the site when it harms no one. the only harm caused is the lack of new posts and/or information. i do agree with what your position because too many threads have absolutely no relation to trading or the market. use the flock to do the dirty work.

Hi tickerfan,

Thanks for fully explaining...I re-read your initial comments and I think I might have misunderstood your last comment where you said keep your legs shut if you aren't prepared to assume the full financial responsibility. I mistook that you were putting the whole responsibility all on the woman. But, it sounds like you are clarifying that you are saying the same thought should be applied to both men and women since the outcome is always uncertain.

Sorry if I took offense and was overly harsh with you. Though I still disagree with your assesment of women in general. I've had a different experience, meaning that I know a lot of wonderful women. And, I really take offense to people portraying women in general as bad and vendictive or maniacally scheming to "catch" poor innocent men.

Despite the fact that I feel my situation was not resolved in a fair manner, notice that I've only said that I had a sucky lawyer but I've never said that my husband is a vendictive son-of-a-bitch who schemed to get me pregnant so he could get the child support from me or that all men are bad or that the system is against me. Ultimately, it's my own fault that I was too stupid to know to get a better lawyer at the time.

In reality, my goal in bringing this up was not even to complain, only to defend against the impression that men are always the ones getting screwed and when not, then the woman must be a drunk or a druggy. As my experience is that he/she who hires the better lawyer gets their way. This is not just one data point - not just my own divorce I am drawing on. My grandparents are divorced, my parents are divorced and I've also got two sisters who are divorced too. I don't think the courts favored any of the women in any of those cases: My grandfather was hardly involved to help my grandmother who raised my dad and his three siblings in poverty. My dad quit working for a year or more so he would have no income to report on his tax forms and managed to come out of my parent's divorce with flying colors. (Or at least, I believe, alternate arrangements were made so that he was not paid a salary during that time.) My first sister had a generally fair resolution. But, the other sister gave everything to her husband: their home, their business - that they both had worked equally to develop - their car, everything, because she was afraid of him and just wanted to get out of the marriage at any cost. If the courts do favor women sometimes, then maybe that is what they are trying to prevent but it didn't seem to help my sister any.

prospektor,

That sounds very reasonable in your situation. In our situation, 90% of our expenses are school, travel expenses, and health care. Those don't change much regardless of who she is with for how much time. (For example, her travel expenses run about $600/mo and her school expenses had been around $17K per year until just recently when she changed schools.)

Gawd Gen:

I have 4 children, 2 boys and 2 girls. I could never say "Fu*k" the way you described in front of my daughters. I Mean I have told my girls that boys have a single purpose heat sinking moisture missile that will do anything to find and destroy it's target.

Really, do you have to be so vulgar?

You know I'm kidding!

Quote:

If you say no and they don't listen, kicking them in the balls is a fairly effective defensive mechanism, and then there's always Dad, who can and will kick their ass or worse."

Nice!