WOMEN BAILING ON THE GOP-'I hung on until I couldn't'. Kavanaugh put me over the top!

[JoeB131]

1) I'm not the one claiming what you claim.
2) You may be getting yours for nothing. I earn mine through what I offer to an employer. That's the difference.

There isn't a difference. Your employer is paying into a fund for you. (I actually buy my own insurance direct from an insurance company). But if you get sick next year, whatever you and your employer paid into it will be seriously outmatched by even moderate medical bills... that's the point. It's all collectivism.

We don't do it wrong. MY coverage, as part of my compensation, costs me nothing. The most I'll pay out of pocket is $750/year.

But that's my WHOLE POINT. you are only on the hook for $750 a year. Someone else is paying your way, you socialist commie piece of crap.

The state doesn't have a responsibility to those children. That would involve those that aren't the sperm donor paying for children they didn't produce. The responsibility lies with those producing those children. If they can't or won't, let bleeding hearts like Joe voluntarily do it and prove he has the compassion he claims.

Actually, the responsibility lies with the guy whose name was on the birth certificate... that's the law, buddy.

What kind of sick fuck thinks someone that isn't the baby daddy should be financially responsible for something that is that of the actual sperm donor?

There's more to being a father than sperm, bud. Just ask the thousands of dads who've adopted children or taken on responsibility as a step parent.

The point is, the child didn't do anything wrong here, and Vasty's friend (I would never have a person like this in a circle of friends) is kind of an awful person turning his back on his child.

 

[JoeB131]

Unfortunately, in a just system; at the moment the truth became apparent, the state should have been required to refund the defrauded parties money that was extorted under false pretense. Additionally, the state would be picking up a substantial portion of the tab, in the interim, until the financial burden had been applied to the actual father.
Both of those mean money going out of state coffers. They simply cannot have that. Even if it means continuing to extort a fraud victim. It’s all about protecting the state. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “the best interests of the child”.

Well, here's the thing. Was it false pretenses? Did the woman know that he wasn't the dad? Did he have sex with her six times that month, and the hookup was only once, so as far as she knew, he was the father.

Yes, it is about protecting the child. Just like a sperm donor can't come in 10 years down the road and lay claim to a kid, the person who acted as parent should be responsible

 

[Vastator]

You're sure? Without proof, you are doing nothing more than making an unsubstantiated claim.

Again, since you won't tell us what state you live in, you are free to check out the laws.. and they are probably the same.

When someone isn't the sperm donor, they have no personal responsibility for the situation.

Except that's not what the law says.

Not if the name is removed when the truth is known. If the name isn't on the birth certificate anymore, no longer his responsibility.

Um, yeah, good luck with that.

How do I get my name off a birth certificate? | Dads Divorce

In many states, if you were married to the mother at the time the child was born, you are dad. A genetic test is not needed and the Court could, and it seems the Court may already have, declared you the father. Some states even prohibit genetic testing once a man has been legally determined to be the father. Since you were married at the time the child was born, there was likely a presumption that you were the father which was solidified with the divorce decree. Some states do allow a genetic test and may extinguish a support order upon the discovery that the child is not your biological child.

Universal healthcare would be the problem. Again, if you want someone without care to have it, write a check. As for suffering, I hope that you get something for which you suffer immensely. Slowly and painfully.

1) Wow, dude, you have issues.
2) Sorry, man, most of us are getting our health care paid for by someone else, whether we are in an insurance plan or a government program. Someone else is paying those bills.

The difference is, we do it wrong, we spend more money than anyone else does, and we get the worst results. and guys like Vasty's friend get put through the wringer.

All these legal implements exist with the sole purpose of protecting the state from financial liability; at the cost of defrauded fathers. They are worse than draconian, and serve the best interest of the state, and the state alone.

The state doesn't have a responsibility to those children. That would involve those that aren't the sperm donor paying for children they didn't produce. The responsibility lies with those producing those children. If they can't or won't, let bleeding hearts like Joe voluntarily do it and prove he has the compassion he claims.

Unfortunately, in a just system; at the moment the truth became apparent, the state should have been required to refund the defrauded parties money that was extorted under false pretense. Additionally, the state would be picking up a substantial portion of the tab, in the interim, until the financial burden had been applied to the actual father.
Both of those mean money going out of state coffers. They simply cannot have that. Even if it means continuing to extort a fraud victim. It’s all about protecting the state. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “the best interests of the child”.

I'm not real sure about a refund if the one claiming to be the father accepted the responsibility. However, at the point where it's proven he's not, no more mandated support should be required.

At the very least...

 

[Conservative65]

1) I'm not the one claiming what you claim.
2) You may be getting yours for nothing. I earn mine through what I offer to an employer. That's the difference.

There isn't a difference. Your employer is paying into a fund for you. (I actually buy my own insurance direct from an insurance company). But if you get sick next year, whatever you and your employer paid into it will be seriously outmatched by even moderate medical bills... that's the point. It's all collectivism.

We don't do it wrong. MY coverage, as part of my compensation, costs me nothing. The most I'll pay out of pocket is $750/year.

But that's my WHOLE POINT. you are only on the hook for $750 a year. Someone else is paying your way, you socialist commie piece of crap.

The state doesn't have a responsibility to those children. That would involve those that aren't the sperm donor paying for children they didn't produce. The responsibility lies with those producing those children. If they can't or won't, let bleeding hearts like Joe voluntarily do it and prove he has the compassion he claims.

Actually, the responsibility lies with the guy whose name was on the birth certificate... that's the law, buddy.

What kind of sick fuck thinks someone that isn't the baby daddy should be financially responsible for something that is that of the actual sperm donor?

There's more to being a father than sperm, bud. Just ask the thousands of dads who've adopted children or taken on responsibility as a step parent.

The point is, the child didn't do anything wrong here, and Vasty's friend (I would never have a person like this in a circle of friends) is kind of an awful person turning his back on his child.

There is a difference between earning and what you support being handed for nothing.

Someone is compensating me for what I offer them. There is a difference.

Those thousands that adopted or are step fathers do so by choice. When the choice isn't made and the legal responsibility isn't there, neither should the funding.

The person that isn't the sperm donor didn't do anything wrong yet you want him to still pay. If he isn't the sperm donor and doesn't voluntarily accept the responsibility, it isn't his child.

 

[Vastator]

Unfortunately, in a just system; at the moment the truth became apparent, the state should have been required to refund the defrauded parties money that was extorted under false pretense. Additionally, the state would be picking up a substantial portion of the tab, in the interim, until the financial burden had been applied to the actual father.
Both of those mean money going out of state coffers. They simply cannot have that. Even if it means continuing to extort a fraud victim. It’s all about protecting the state. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “the best interests of the child”.

Well, here's the thing. Was it false pretenses? Did the woman know that he wasn't the dad? Did he have sex with her six times that month, and the hookup was only once, so as far as she knew, he was the father.

Yes, it is about protecting the child. Just like a sperm donor can't come in 10 years down the road and lay claim to a kid, the person who acted as parent should be responsible

No. It’s about protecting the state. If it were about the best interest of the child; the state would proverbially trample it’s own mother to be first in line to cover all expenses whole hog given its pockets are much deeper. It’s an extortion racket, plain and simple.

 

[JoeB131]

There is a difference between earning and what you support being handed for nothing.

Someone is compensating me for what I offer them. There is a difference.

I'm sure you are doing very well as your job as Head Possum Catcher, but I promise you, if you got cancer next week, what it would cost to treat you would be many times your salary and other people will be picking it up.

Those thousands that adopted or are step fathers do so by choice. When the choice isn't made and the legal responsibility isn't there, neither should the funding.

The guy in question married the woman and put his name on the BC. He also made a choice. You can't have "backsies' when your choices don't turn out the way you like.

The person that isn't the sperm donor didn't do anything wrong yet you want him to still pay. If he isn't the sperm donor and doesn't voluntarily accept the responsibility, it isn't his child.

Except he signed a birth certificate and said it was his responsibility.

No. It’s about protecting the state. If it were about the best interest of the child; the state would proverbially trample it’s own mother to be first in line to cover all expenses whole hog given its pockets are much deeper. It’s an extortion racket, plain and simple.

The state already pays for a lot of people's kids... and maybe it should do that smarter... but this is a case where someone was trying to get out of his responsibilities. No Pity.

 

[Vastator]

There is a difference between earning and what you support being handed for nothing.

Someone is compensating me for what I offer them. There is a difference.

I'm sure you are doing very well as your job as Head Possum Catcher, but I promise you, if you got cancer next week, what it would cost to treat you would be many times your salary and other people will be picking it up.

Those thousands that adopted or are step fathers do so by choice. When the choice isn't made and the legal responsibility isn't there, neither should the funding.

The guy in question married the woman and put his name on the BC. He also made a choice. You can't have "backsies' when your choices don't turn out the way you like.

The person that isn't the sperm donor didn't do anything wrong yet you want him to still pay. If he isn't the sperm donor and doesn't voluntarily accept the responsibility, it isn't his child.

Except he signed a birth certificate and said it was his responsibility.

No. It’s about protecting the state. If it were about the best interest of the child; the state would proverbially trample it’s own mother to be first in line to cover all expenses whole hog given its pockets are much deeper. It’s an extortion racket, plain and simple.

The state already pays for a lot of people's kids... and maybe it should do that smarter... but this is a case where someone was trying to get out of his responsibilities. No Pity.

Wrong. This is a case where someone did in fact did get out of his responsibilities. At a grievous cost to another. Got you an illigetimate kid out there; and afraid someone might come a knockin’ Should the law be corrected? You sound pretty invested in perpetuating this flaw in the system... Hmmm...

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. This is a case where someone did in fact did get out of his responsibilities. At a grievous cost to another. Got you an illigetimate kid out there; and afraid someone might come a knockin’ Should the law be corrected? You sound pretty invested in perpetuating this flaw in the system... Hmmm...

It isn't a flaw. It does exactly what it is supposed to do- it protects children.

If there was a time to dispute paternity, it was before the umbilical chord was cut. Not six or ten years later when they come looking for the bills to be paid.

My point was that you got on here whining about how the mean old state abuses men... and then we find out that your friend deserved every bit of abuse he got for being a deadbeat dad and kind of a creep.

 

[Vastator]

Wrong. This is a case where someone did in fact did get out of his responsibilities. At a grievous cost to another. Got you an illigetimate kid out there; and afraid someone might come a knockin’ Should the law be corrected? You sound pretty invested in perpetuating this flaw in the system... Hmmm...

It isn't a flaw. It does exactly what it is supposed to do- it protects children.

If there was a time to dispute paternity, it was before the umbilical chord was cut. Not six or ten years later when they come looking for the bills to be paid.

My point was that you got on here whining about how the mean old state abuses men... and then we find out that your friend deserved every bit of abuse he got for being a deadbeat dad and kind of a creep.

It does do exactly what it’s supposed to do. It protects the state from incurring a cost due to wrongfully assuming paternity. It offers no protection to a child, to hold the father financially blameless at the cost of a third party.

 

[Vastator]

Wrong. This is a case where someone did in fact did get out of his responsibilities. At a grievous cost to another. Got you an illigetimate kid out there; and afraid someone might come a knockin’ Should the law be corrected? You sound pretty invested in perpetuating this flaw in the system... Hmmm...

It isn't a flaw. It does exactly what it is supposed to do- it protects children.

If there was a time to dispute paternity, it was before the umbilical chord was cut. Not six or ten years later when they come looking for the bills to be paid.

My point was that you got on here whining about how the mean old state abuses men... and then we find out that your friend deserved every bit of abuse he got for being a deadbeat dad and kind of a creep.

Again you’re wrong. This habitual for you isn’t it. The facts remain the facts. The friend in fact was not the father. No stroke of a pen will ever change that fact. And yes. As the system is rigged now; it is set up to extort men, regardless of facts, and absent the pursuit of reasoned justice. There is no getting around that fact.

 

[Vastator]

Wrong. This is a case where someone did in fact did get out of his responsibilities. At a grievous cost to another. Got you an illigetimate kid out there; and afraid someone might come a knockin’ Should the law be corrected? You sound pretty invested in perpetuating this flaw in the system... Hmmm...

If there was a time to dispute paternity, it was before the umbilical chord was cut. Not six or ten years later when they come looking for the bills to be paid.

Wrong again. The time to raise a dispute is at the moment of first suspicion. Just like writing a bad check... The shop owners should have disputed this prior to finding out that the writer didn’t have the funds to cover it? Truly absurd. Much like your contortions intended to defend the state.

 

[Conservative65]

There is a difference between earning and what you support being handed for nothing.

Someone is compensating me for what I offer them. There is a difference.

I'm sure you are doing very well as your job as Head Possum Catcher, but I promise you, if you got cancer next week, what it would cost to treat you would be many times your salary and other people will be picking it up.

Those thousands that adopted or are step fathers do so by choice. When the choice isn't made and the legal responsibility isn't there, neither should the funding.

The guy in question married the woman and put his name on the BC. He also made a choice. You can't have "backsies' when your choices don't turn out the way you like.

The person that isn't the sperm donor didn't do anything wrong yet you want him to still pay. If he isn't the sperm donor and doesn't voluntarily accept the responsibility, it isn't his child.

Except he signed a birth certificate and said it was his responsibility.

No. It’s about protecting the state. If it were about the best interest of the child; the state would proverbially trample it’s own mother to be first in line to cover all expenses whole hog given its pockets are much deeper. It’s an extortion racket, plain and simple.

The state already pays for a lot of people's kids... and maybe it should do that smarter... but this is a case where someone was trying to get out of his responsibilities. No Pity.

Wrong. This is a case where someone did in fact did get out of his responsibilities. At a grievous cost to another. Got you an illigetimate kid out there; and afraid someone might come a knockin’ Should the law be corrected? You sound pretty invested in perpetuating this flaw in the system... Hmmm...

It's impossible for Joe to have any children. He hasn't had a piece of pussy since it had him.

 

[JoeB131]

It does do exactly what it’s supposed to do. It protects the state from incurring a cost due to wrongfully assuming paternity. It offers no protection to a child, to hold the father financially blameless at the cost of a third party.

Except the father isn't a third party... the sperm donor who had no contact or involvement in that kid's life is.

By your logic, anyone who donates sperm to a sperm bank can be held liable.

Again you’re wrong. This habitual for you isn’t it. The facts remain the facts. The friend in fact was not the father. No stroke of a pen will ever change that fact. And yes. As the system is rigged now; it is set up to extort men, regardless of facts, and absent the pursuit of reasoned justice. There is no getting around that fact.

He said he was the father on the birth certificate.
The child called him"Daddy" for years.
The system works just fine.
There's more to fatherhood than where the spooge came from.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong again. The time to raise a dispute is at the moment of first suspicion. Just like writing a bad check... The shop owners should have disputed this prior to finding out that the writer didn’t have the funds to cover it? Truly absurd. Much like your contortions intended to defend the state.

Yawn, the state is protecting my interest. I don't want to pay for little Billy's bills because his father is a deadbeat piece of white trash trying to get out of his responsibilities as a man.

 

[Vastator]

It does do exactly what it’s supposed to do. It protects the state from incurring a cost due to wrongfully assuming paternity. It offers no protection to a child, to hold the father financially blameless at the cost of a third party.

Except the father isn't a third party... the sperm donor who had no contact or involvement in that kid's life is.

By your logic, anyone who donates sperm to a sperm bank can be held liable.

Again you’re wrong. This habitual for you isn’t it. The facts remain the facts. The friend in fact was not the father. No stroke of a pen will ever change that fact. And yes. As the system is rigged now; it is set up to extort men, regardless of facts, and absent the pursuit of reasoned justice. There is no getting around that fact.

He said he was the father on the birth certificate.
The child called him"Daddy" for years.
The system works just fine.
There's more to fatherhood than where the spooge came from.

The state said he was the father. Your having a hard time grasping the concept that the husbands input is not required for the state to make the claim of paternity. It is automatic. With, or without his consent.

 

[Vastator]

Wrong again. The time to raise a dispute is at the moment of first suspicion. Just like writing a bad check... The shop owners should have disputed this prior to finding out that the writer didn’t have the funds to cover it? Truly absurd. Much like your contortions intended to defend the state.

Yawn, the state is protecting my interest. I don't want to pay for little Billy's bills because his father is a deadbeat piece of white trash trying to get out of his responsibilities as a man.

So you at least admit you share the defrauded parties concern. Youre just glad it didn’t happen to you. Finally you drop all pretense, and display your hypocrisy in full. I’m proud of you. Feels good; doesn’t it? To just... Own it... Display it for all to see... Truly liberating...

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Ahh....yet ANOTHER one of "those" threads by butt hurting leftists.....

 

[JoeB131]

The state said he was the father. Your having a hard time grasping the concept that the husbands input is not required for the state to make the claim of paternity. It is automatic. With, or without his consent.

The state said he was the father because he was married to her, was screwing her and there was no real reason to think he wasn't.

So you at least admit you share the defrauded parties concern. Youre just glad it didn’t happen to you. Finally you drop all pretense, and display your hypocrisy in full. I’m proud of you. Feels good; doesn’t it? To just... Own it... Display it for all to see... Truly liberating...

Oh, I truly feel good watching white trash dirtbags get screwed by the system. It is truly liberating to watch them cry when the courts make them live up to their obligations.

 

[Vastator]

The state said he was the father. Your having a hard time grasping the concept that the husbands input is not required for the state to make the claim of paternity. It is automatic. With, or without his consent.

The state said he was the father because he was married to her, was screwing her and there was no real reason to think he wasn't.

So you at least admit you share the defrauded parties concern. Youre just glad it didn’t happen to you. Finally you drop all pretense, and display your hypocrisy in full. I’m proud of you. Feels good; doesn’t it? To just... Own it... Display it for all to see... Truly liberating...

Precisely. The assumption made in good faith; was in fact made in error. That error allowed the actual father to avoid responsibility. That’s why it is incumbent upon a legally just system to correct errors, as they are made known. But youre unprincipled. You keep contradicting yourself throughout this thread. That’s the cost of lacking principles...

 

[JoeB131]

Precisely. The assumption made in good faith; was in fact made in error. That error allowed the actual father to avoid responsibility. That’s why it is incumbent upon a legally just system to correct errors, as they are made known. But youre unprincipled. You keep contradicting yourself throughout this thread. That’s the cost of lacking principles...

Nope. The principle is to protect children. If this guy was too stupid to realize that his wife was stepping out on him because of his inadequacies as a man, that's on him.