Republican state legislator introduces amendment to require child support recipients to submit to drug tests. Still no war on women.
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
get permlink
Cool
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
Subtard assumes that the woman would be the one with the child, that the woman is just a vessel through which babby travels and then sits on her fat ass until the child is 18.
Subard would be correct most of the time, but still no war on women, right?
Subard would be correct most of the time, but still no war on women, right?
It seems to me that calling this a war on women is pretty much 1) admitting to the sexism in the system and b) having little interest in fixing it
myinternetname: Subtard assumes that the woman would be the one with the child
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but 5 out of 6 custodial parents receiving child support are women.
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but 5 out of 6 custodial parents receiving child support are women.
myinternetname: Subtard assumes that the woman would be the one with the child, that the woman is just a vessel through which babby travels and then sits on her fat ass until the child is 18.
Subard would be correct most of the time, but still no war on women, right?
A misogynist and a racist. You just have it all, don't you?
Subard would be correct most of the time, but still no war on women, right?
A misogynist and a racist. You just have it all, don't you?
How is this against women?
( note: i do not support this moronic idea of govt drug testing of child support recipients.)
How is this against women?
sabine: I have no idea what you're trying to say, but 5 out of 6 custodial parents receiving child support are women.
So you're saying the system is biased to take money from men?
sabine: I have no idea what you're trying to say, but 5 out of 6 custodial parents receiving child support are women.
So you're saying the system is biased to take money from men?
so vote republican: So you're saying the system is biased to take money from men?
I have no idea how much "the system" contributes to those numbers.
I have no idea how much "the system" contributes to those numbers.
sabine: I have no idea how much "the system" contributes to those numbers.
By "system" I mean "custodial parent child support laws".
By "system" I mean "custodial parent child support laws".
so vote republican: How is this against women?
It is more of a war against the poor, it's just a bonus for the GOP that it will impact woman more than men.
It is more of a war against the poor, it's just a bonus for the GOP that it will impact woman more than men.
Why not drug test them, if the other party wants to pay? This is good libertarian philosophy in action. I mean after all, if the other party tests positive for drugs, you shouldn't have to pay them any more, because all your money is going to drugs and Escalades and her new black boyfriend. And once you don't have to pay her anymore, the kid wins the life they deserved by falling out of the vagina of that insufferable gold digging whore.
I RTFA.
Sounds like this was a war on *a* woman.
Thankfully, it was shot down quick before this stupid shit spread.
Sounds like this was a war on *a* woman.
Thankfully, it was shot down quick before this stupid shit spread.
As stupid as this motion was...
It does raise an interesting issue surrounding custody and child support. What are the systems in place for ensuring that the child is in the proper environment after the initial decision? Is there, like, a yearly review with no bias towards the previous decision? It just seems silly to me, the idea that how the environments are for those first 6-or-so months are assumed to be consistent for the next 15 years or whatever.
It does raise an interesting issue surrounding custody and child support. What are the systems in place for ensuring that the child is in the proper environment after the initial decision? Is there, like, a yearly review with no bias towards the previous decision? It just seems silly to me, the idea that how the environments are for those first 6-or-so months are assumed to be consistent for the next 15 years or whatever.
artificeren: As stupid as this motion was...
It does raise an interesting issue surrounding custody and child support. What are the systems in place for ensuring that the child is in the proper environment after the initial decision? Is there, like, a yearly review with no bias towards the previous decision? It just seems silly to me, the idea that how the environments are for those first 6-or-so months are assumed to be consistent for the next 15 years or whatever.
It's a lot worse than that. The woman essentially has to be in the bottom 5% of humanity to lose primary custody of her child. "The system" isn't bias in terms of giving women the money, it's bias when it comes to giving the women the kids.
It does raise an interesting issue surrounding custody and child support. What are the systems in place for ensuring that the child is in the proper environment after the initial decision? Is there, like, a yearly review with no bias towards the previous decision? It just seems silly to me, the idea that how the environments are for those first 6-or-so months are assumed to be consistent for the next 15 years or whatever.
It's a lot worse than that. The woman essentially has to be in the bottom 5% of humanity to lose primary custody of her child. "The system" isn't bias in terms of giving women the money, it's bias when it comes to giving the women the kids.
libs keep banning me: It's a lot worse than that. The woman essentially has to be in the bottom 5% of humanity to lose primary custody of her child. "The system" isn't bias in terms of giving women the money, it's bias when it comes to giving the women the kids.
yes, i'm well aware of the situation. I was just trying to raise a question that I don't think many have thought of.
How it seems to go as far as I can tell is:
If she's better off than him, then she can obviously provide a better environment than that lazy good for nothing, so she gets the kids.
If he's better off than her, then she obviously sacrificed her career to focus mainly on raising the kids, so the kids should stay with her while he does what men do best, be a work-horse.
doesn't seem right to me.
yes, i'm well aware of the situation. I was just trying to raise a question that I don't think many have thought of.
How it seems to go as far as I can tell is:
If she's better off than him, then she can obviously provide a better environment than that lazy good for nothing, so she gets the kids.
If he's better off than her, then she obviously sacrificed her career to focus mainly on raising the kids, so the kids should stay with her while he does what men do best, be a work-horse.
doesn't seem right to me.
How does receiving child support involve the government? This is a matter between two private citizens.
cousin dupree: How does receiving child support involve the government? This is a matter between two private citizens.
many states have laws where if a custodial parent is on any form of state support, then they require involvement in child support proceedings. From which, of course, they get a cut to help fund the support they are giving out.
many states have laws where if a custodial parent is on any form of state support, then they require involvement in child support proceedings. From which, of course, they get a cut to help fund the support they are giving out.
cousin dupree: How does receiving child support involve the government? This is a matter between two private citizens.
Child support is usually a court-ordered or court-agreed-upon arrangement. Walmart doesn't run the courts. Yet.
Child support is usually a court-ordered or court-agreed-upon arrangement. Walmart doesn't run the courts. Yet.
sabine: I have no idea what you're trying to say, but 5 out of 6 custodial parents receiving child support are women.
Statbine strikes again!
Statbine strikes again!
libs keep banning me: Child support is usually a court-ordered or court-agreed-upon arrangement. Walmart doesn't run the courts. Yet.
Welcome to the Justice Department. I love you.
Wow. Not far off.
Welcome to the Justice Department. I love you.
Wow. Not far off.
Why is this necessary? Doing drugs is already against the law. And a drug arrest would certainly be grounds to get custody.
This seems more like not wanting to pay AND not actually wanting to care for your kids.
This seems more like not wanting to pay AND not actually wanting to care for your kids.
libs keep banning me: Child support is usually a court-ordered or court-agreed-upon arrangement. Walmart doesn't run the courts. Yet.
So where does the drug testing part become relevant?
So where does the drug testing part become relevant?
This seems more like war on kids to me.
abbynormal:
This seems more like not wanting to pay AND not actually wanting to care for your kids.
thatstheunfortunatejoke.png
This seems more like not wanting to pay AND not actually wanting to care for your kids.
thatstheunfortunatejoke.png
kswheels: This seems more like war on kids to me.
Unable to cite a source, but there was a divorce a bunch of years ago that was particularly ugly, and the custody battle was worse. At the end of it, the judge awarded joint custody; with a twist. Since the kid(s) had done nothing to cause any of this, he didn't see why they should suffer because of the parents. So his ruling was that the kid stays put in the family home and it's the parents who rotate residency every two weeks. That one frosted a few assholes.
Unable to cite a source, but there was a divorce a bunch of years ago that was particularly ugly, and the custody battle was worse. At the end of it, the judge awarded joint custody; with a twist. Since the kid(s) had done nothing to cause any of this, he didn't see why they should suffer because of the parents. So his ruling was that the kid stays put in the family home and it's the parents who rotate residency every two weeks. That one frosted a few assholes.
cousin dupree: Unable to cite a source, but there was a divorce a bunch of years ago that was particularly ugly, and the custody battle was worse. At the end of it, the judge awarded joint custody; with a twist. Since the kid(s) had done nothing to cause any of this, he didn't see why they should suffer because of the parents. So his ruling was that the kid stays put in the family home and it's the parents who rotate residency every two weeks. That one frosted a few assholes.
That's...Uh...Hmmmm.
That's...Uh...Hmmmm.
cousin dupree: So where does the drug testing part become relevant?
Because the couple, failing to work out terms on their own, has invited a bunch of douchebags into the arrangement who are more than willing to give you directions on how to raise your children.
Of course, when all else fails, the people that pass laws like this don't have the slightest clue what to do with the children already in their Child Protective Services system.
Because the couple, failing to work out terms on their own, has invited a bunch of douchebags into the arrangement who are more than willing to give you directions on how to raise your children.
Of course, when all else fails, the people that pass laws like this don't have the slightest clue what to do with the children already in their Child Protective Services system.
abbynormal: This seems more like not wanting to pay AND not actually wanting to care for your kids.
You know... There's a solution for that too.
Don't have them.
Of course, some asshole want to make that more difficult than it should be.
You know... There's a solution for that too.
Don't have them.
Of course, some asshole want to make that more difficult than it should be.
Drug tests are invasive. Medical procedures and tests should be private. I'd move towards amending the right to protect ones right to strict privacy about what they ingest, except in cases where criminal charges are levied.
untrustworthy: Drug tests are invasive. Medical procedures and tests should be private. I'd move towards amending the right to protect ones right to strict privacy about what they ingest, except in cases where criminal charges are levied.
Sounds great but that ship has sailed. You have to piss in a cup to get a job stacking pants in this country.
Sounds great but that ship has sailed. You have to piss in a cup to get a job stacking pants in this country.
vliam: Sounds great but that ship has sailed. You have to piss in a cup to get a job stacking pants in this country.
Theres a difference between the government requiring a citizen to comply or else face legal sanction vs private parties agreeing to a contract, IMO.
Theres a difference between the government requiring a citizen to comply or else face legal sanction vs private parties agreeing to a contract, IMO.
vliam: Sounds great but that ship has sailed. You have to piss in a cup to get a job stacking pants in this country.
You make that sound as simple as stacking pants....oh wait. Lemme get back to you.
You make that sound as simple as stacking pants....oh wait. Lemme get back to you.
untrustworthy: Theres a difference between the government requiring a citizen to comply or else face legal sanction vs private parties agreeing to a contract, IMO.
Is there?
When corporations begin forming legislative topics, that division becomes less clear.
Is there?
When corporations begin forming legislative topics, that division becomes less clear.
vliam: Is there?
When corporations begin forming legislative topics, that division becomes less clear.
I can choose to enter into a contract with a corporation for employment. Government gets your signature by birth. I don't consider the two to be the same.
When corporations begin forming legislative topics, that division becomes less clear.
I can choose to enter into a contract with a corporation for employment. Government gets your signature by birth. I don't consider the two to be the same.
untrustworthy: I can choose to enter into a contract with a corporation for employment. Government gets your signature by birth. I don't consider the two to be the same.
My country got my signature at birth in the form of two teeny tiny footie prints. I'm onto my third country now, and my feet are much bigger.
My country got my signature at birth in the form of two teeny tiny footie prints. I'm onto my third country now, and my feet are much bigger.
untrustworthy: I can choose to enter into a contract with a corporation for employment. Government gets your signature by birth. I don't consider the two to be the same.
Fair enough.
But when government begins to introduce these intrusions, they're not usually organic. The impetus for the legislation comes from a group funded by corporate profits.
I'll admit that this was an exception. It was one idiot listen to one idiot constituent. That's rare. It's probably the reason it was laughed down. If their were an interest group distributing cash about, I think a lot less laughter would have ensued.
Fair enough.
But when government begins to introduce these intrusions, they're not usually organic. The impetus for the legislation comes from a group funded by corporate profits.
I'll admit that this was an exception. It was one idiot listen to one idiot constituent. That's rare. It's probably the reason it was laughed down. If their were an interest group distributing cash about, I think a lot less laughter would have ensued.
vliam: Fair enough.
But when government begins to introduce these intrusions, they're not usually organic. The impetus for the legislation comes from a group funded by corporate profits.
I'll admit that this was an exception. It was one idiot listen to one idiot constituent. That's rare. It's probably the reason it was laughed down. If their were an interest group distributing cash about, I think a lot less laughter would have ensued.
Government should not be allowed to drug test unless there is evidence of a crime where the drugs are evidence. It's invasive. In my opinion, it goes to improper search. And it has absolutely nothing to do with any private parties entering into an agreement about how they want to conduct themselves.
But when government begins to introduce these intrusions, they're not usually organic. The impetus for the legislation comes from a group funded by corporate profits.
I'll admit that this was an exception. It was one idiot listen to one idiot constituent. That's rare. It's probably the reason it was laughed down. If their were an interest group distributing cash about, I think a lot less laughter would have ensued.
Government should not be allowed to drug test unless there is evidence of a crime where the drugs are evidence. It's invasive. In my opinion, it goes to improper search. And it has absolutely nothing to do with any private parties entering into an agreement about how they want to conduct themselves.
untrustworthy: it has absolutely nothing to do with any private parties entering into an agreement about how they want to conduct themselves.
Do you believe government should be able to set limitations on demands for invasive search as a condition of employment in the private sector?
Do you believe government should be able to set limitations on demands for invasive search as a condition of employment in the private sector?
artificeren: As stupid as this motion was...
It does raise an interesting issue surrounding custody and child support. What are the systems in place for ensuring that the child is in the proper environment after the initial decision? Is there, like, a yearly review with no bias towards the previous decision? It just seems silly to me, the idea that how the environments are for those first 6-or-so months are assumed to be consistent for the next 15 years or whatever.
If a change happens that could possibly be to the detriment of the child, the non-custodial parent can file a case to have custody reviewed. As far as I know, there's no automatic review. I guess they figure you can monitor your own family's business, at least for now. My ex tried it last year, but was shot down. After basically removing himself from her life, he thought it was a good idea to make her pay for his decisions by having a 12 year old move over 1,200 miles every year, changing schools, leaving behind friends and family. He also called it "joint custody" so that child support would be waived. Not that he's actually paid any.
It does raise an interesting issue surrounding custody and child support. What are the systems in place for ensuring that the child is in the proper environment after the initial decision? Is there, like, a yearly review with no bias towards the previous decision? It just seems silly to me, the idea that how the environments are for those first 6-or-so months are assumed to be consistent for the next 15 years or whatever.
If a change happens that could possibly be to the detriment of the child, the non-custodial parent can file a case to have custody reviewed. As far as I know, there's no automatic review. I guess they figure you can monitor your own family's business, at least for now. My ex tried it last year, but was shot down. After basically removing himself from her life, he thought it was a good idea to make her pay for his decisions by having a 12 year old move over 1,200 miles every year, changing schools, leaving behind friends and family. He also called it "joint custody" so that child support would be waived. Not that he's actually paid any.
The child support system is for the most part, a War on Men.
When you get right down to it. There is no War on Women as they benefit from all sorts of policies al the name of "equality".
When you get right down to it. There is no War on Women as they benefit from all sorts of policies al the name of "equality".
the sonic dildo: The child support system is for the most part, a War on Men.
When you get right down to it. There is no War on Women as they benefit from all sorts of policies al the name of "equality".
Lies. Everything is equal unless you happen to be a white heterosexual male in the US. Progressive trolling knows no legislative bounds.
When you get right down to it. There is no War on Women as they benefit from all sorts of policies al the name of "equality".
Lies. Everything is equal unless you happen to be a white heterosexual male in the US. Progressive trolling knows no legislative bounds.
the sonic dildo: The child support system is for the most part, a War on Men.
When you get right down to it. There is no War on Women as they benefit from all sorts of policies al the name of "equality".
Screw the drug test, make the woman account for all the money and how she spends it
When you get right down to it. There is no War on Women as they benefit from all sorts of policies al the name of "equality".
Screw the drug test, make the woman account for all the money and how she spends it
sabine: Do you believe government should be able to set limitations on demands for invasive search as a condition of employment in the private sector?
If the business is engaging in interstate commerce, then the federal government has limited rights to regulate. I'm cool with that in general.
If the business is engaging in interstate commerce, then the federal government has limited rights to regulate. I'm cool with that in general.
baron muchhumpin: Screw the drug test, make the woman account for all the money and how she spends it
Now that is fair.
I agree 100%.
Now that is fair.
I agree 100%.
baron muchhumpin: Screw the drug test, make the woman account for all the money and how she spends it
Start with the exes of pro ball players. $10,000 a month for 1 kid. lolwut?
If I was in their place, sure I'd want $ and save it for the kid, because you know the daddy will be broke within 5-10 years.
But I'd guess most of them don't, they spend spend spend.
Start with the exes of pro ball players. $10,000 a month for 1 kid. lolwut?
If I was in their place, sure I'd want $ and save it for the kid, because you know the daddy will be broke within 5-10 years.
But I'd guess most of them don't, they spend spend spend.
untrustworthy: If the business is engaging in interstate commerce, then the federal government has limited rights to regulate. I'm cool with that in general.
How about state governments in the absence of interstate commerce?
How about state governments in the absence of interstate commerce?
the sonic dildo: Now that is fair.
I agree 100%.
How many children are you responsible for? The person not actually caring for the child tends to WAY underestimate how much it costs to feed, clothe, and house a child. My ex bitched me out for putting together an Easter basket for my 10-year-old with MY OWN MONEY. I certainly wouldn't want to have to justify every purchase I make with him. He's a fucking cheapskate. Not only does he not pay child support, he didn't even buy pads for our daughter when she started her period when she was in his care. She borrowed them from his sister until my mom picked her up. My mom had to take her and buy what she needed. WTF?!?
I agree 100%.
How many children are you responsible for? The person not actually caring for the child tends to WAY underestimate how much it costs to feed, clothe, and house a child. My ex bitched me out for putting together an Easter basket for my 10-year-old with MY OWN MONEY. I certainly wouldn't want to have to justify every purchase I make with him. He's a fucking cheapskate. Not only does he not pay child support, he didn't even buy pads for our daughter when she started her period when she was in his care. She borrowed them from his sister until my mom picked her up. My mom had to take her and buy what she needed. WTF?!?
If you logged in, you could post here.