Comments 1 - 40 of 64       Last »     Search these comments

1   justme   2015 Jan 25, 9:05pm  

Agreed.

2   lostand confused   2015 Jan 25, 9:08pm  

He is a man-so must be guilty-no other reason needed. Modern Americana.

3   Strategist   2015 Jan 25, 9:10pm  

Stupid politicians make stupid laws. It's as bad as making an 18 years old who has sex with a 17year old, a sex offender for life.

4   resistance   2015 Jan 25, 9:37pm  

Men need to organize to specifically fight laws like this or men's rights will be continue to be systematically eliminated by feminists, who are much better organized politically, and whose faulty assumptions are never questioned in the mainstream press.

Note that men also have no say whatsoever in whether a woman can abort the man's unborn child, and yet are obligated to pay support.

If women really wanted equal rights things would be very different, but they do not:

http://patrick.net/?p=1250968

Feminists want legal superiority over men in order to use them as forced labor, and they are getting it, as this case demonstrates.

5   Rin   2015 Jan 25, 9:45pm  

Men should give up on women and start to use RealDolls to satisfy their needs.

6   Strategist   2015 Jan 25, 9:49pm  

Rin says

Men should give up on women and start to use RealDolls to satisfy their needs.

RealDolls never have a headache.

7   Rin   2015 Jan 25, 10:19pm  

Strategist says

Rin says

Men should give up on women and start to use RealDolls to satisfy their needs.

RealDolls never have a headache.

Exactly, and in the future, they'll be fully animatronic with AI software, making them better than a real companion.

8   Ceffer   2015 Jan 25, 11:11pm  

As a taxpayer, I have been supporting children that aren't mine for years. Why should I feel sorry for him?

9   Y   2015 Jan 26, 6:19am  

or worse, depending on whose doing the programming...

Rin says

Exactly, and in the future, they'll be fully animatronic with AI software, making them better than a real companion.

10   Patrick   2015 Jan 26, 6:59am  

Ceffer says

As a taxpayer, I have been supporting children that aren't mine for years. Why should I feel sorry for him?

you should feel sorry for him because he has the general tax burden of supporting irresponsible women's children just the same, but also is being told he must pay an additional $30,000 or go to jail. all to a woman he never even touched.

11   zzyzzx   2015 Jan 26, 7:09am  

Rin says

Exactly, and in the future, they'll be fully animatronic with AI software, making them better than a real companion.

And when you are done, they will do the dishes, laundry, and clean.

12   Dan8267   2015 Jan 26, 7:17am  

Rin says

Men should give up on women and start to use RealDolls to satisfy their needs.

The man in the article did not have sex with the woman. She simply lied on a welfare form.

13   anonymous   2015 Jan 26, 7:40am  

If only people would wise up and stop voting republican, we could have much more of this type of crap

Thanks, democrats!

14   Peter P   2015 Jan 26, 8:15am  

My solution:

1. Make women 100% responsible for the children
2. Give women the *absolute* right to abort up to childbirth
3. Allow kids to be abandoned up to age 18

15   Shaman   2015 Jan 26, 8:50am  

If anyone needed confirmation that justice is blind, this would be it!

16   Dan8267   2015 Jan 26, 10:49am  

There are many examples of women behaving selfishly to take financial advantage of men using the corrupt legal system. The woman in the op falsifying a welfare application is an example of this. However, I do not thing the victim's circumstance is itself an example of the family court system's War on Men. I think it's really more about the power of bureaucracies to get away with crimes, in this case theft, false arrest, and false imprisonment, without being held accountable because the individuals responsible for carrying out the crimes are hidden by the bureaucracy and there is no mechanism for holding bureaucracies accountable for their mistakes and crimes.

This same kind of injustice happens all the time with various departments and agencies in the federal, state, and local governments. If the IRS makes a mistake, you're fucked. If the DMV makes a mistake, you're fucked. If the police department raids the wrong house, you're fucked. If you're a five-year-old boy put on the no-fly list, you're fucked.

Bureaucracies first and foremost protect themselves. In the case of the court system, the only recourse you have is to go through the court system, which is an obvious conflict of interest. This is yet another reason why we need a public citizen court system, separate from the state's court systems, that can hold anyone in the state's court systems (judges, police, DAs, etc.) accountable for their actions.

17   Dan8267   2015 Jan 26, 2:12pm  

Another thing. The entire practice of forcing anyone to pay child support or alimony is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Wow, doesn't that make you feel shit about America. Why is there an "except" clause in the banning of slavery? That really shouldn't be there.

Anyway, it's not a crime to have a child or get married, and child support and alimony aren't "punishment" according to the law either, so requiring anyone to pay them under threat of arrest and imprisonment and the use of violence should they resist is exactly what indentured servitude is, if not slavery.

And no, indentured servitude doesn't apply just for boat passage. You can indentured for any reason and it's still being indentured.

18   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Jan 26, 2:32pm  

Dan8267 says

Wow, doesn't that make you feel shit about America. Why is there an "except" clause in the banning of slavery? That really shouldn't be there.

If you have children you automatically agree to be a slave to these children. I don't think anyone would grant you a pass based on the 13th amdt. Just continue not having kids.
Though of course this is not the case here. So indeed maybe he could try the 13th amdt.

Dan8267 says

I do not thing the victim's circumstance is itself an example of the family court system's War on Men.

The question is are there cases where other men are legally forced to pay for children who are not their own based on plain law rather than administrative zealotry, and there are. So I think it is just as good as any other example of war on men.

19   Strategist   2015 Jan 26, 2:49pm  

Dan8267 says

Another thing. The entire practice of forcing anyone to pay child support or alimony is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Wow, doesn't that make you feel shit about America. Why is there an "except" clause in the banning of slavery? That really shouldn't be there.

Anyway, it's not a crime to have a child or get married, and child support and alimony aren't "punishment" according to the law either, so requiring anyone to pay them under threat of arrest and imprisonment and the use of violence should they resist is exactly what indentured servitude is, if not slavery.

You sure have a knack for interpreting the constitution.
The fact is, if you bring a moocher into this world, it gets to mooch off you.

20   Dan8267   2015 Jan 26, 5:42pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

If you have children you automatically agree to be a slave to these children.

No, that's not how parenting works.

Strategist says

You sure have a knack for interpreting the constitution.

Yeah, that whole having a kid isn't a crime thing is far fetched.

Now if you want to prevent people from having children until they pass a fiscal responsibility test and set up a trust fund to ensure the child is not impoverished, that's another matter. But to jail a man because he lost his job due to Republican policies and cannot pay child support is indentured servitude.

Just because you dislike the Constitution, doesn't invalidate it.

21   lostand confused   2015 Jan 26, 5:45pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

If you have children you automatically agree to be a slave to these children. I don't think anyone would grant you a pass based on the 13th amdt. Just continue not having kids

Odd thinking. Just say whoever is financially able to support the kids gets them and keep the gubmnt out of it. Of course then the entire child support/alimony system/complex will lose their livelihood.

22   Strategist   2015 Jan 26, 7:10pm  

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

You sure have a knack for interpreting the constitution.

Yeah, that whole having a kid isn't a crime thing is far fetched.

Now if you want to prevent people from having children until they pass a fiscal responsibility test and set up a trust fund to ensure the child is not impoverished, that's another matter. But to jail a man because he lost his job due to Republican policies and cannot pay child support is indentured servitude.

Just because you dislike the Constitution, doesn't invalidate it.

Dear Dan,
I just don't like your interpretation of the constitution. If that kid isn't his, he should not pay child support. It's something like this....if you like a red convertible car, I hope you enjoy it, but I should not be the one paying for it.

23   elliemae   2015 Jan 26, 9:55pm  

Dan8267 says

The man in the article did not have sex with the woman. She simply lied on a welfare form.

Hopefully he will be able to get out of this. She should be jailed and the kid should go to a good home.

Fathers, and men, have few rights when it comes to support. The court won't address visitation, but will charge a shitload of $$$ anyway.

24   Dan8267   2015 Jan 27, 7:01am  

elliemae says

She should be jailed and the kid should go to a good home.

I think it's wrong that she was forced to name a father in the first place to get welfare benefits. Does she even know who the father is? If a woman has a one-night stand does that mean she and her child should be denied welfare? What about rape victims who cannot name their assailants? The article, like all news articles, lacks the details about the law requiring the naming of the father.

Still, what she did was wrong. She should have named Boehner as the father and make him pay for the child. It would be the first thing he's done for the poor ever. [Note to conservatives: I'm be facetious.]

25   Y   2015 Jan 27, 7:08am  

No it means the guy should have to pay for one night.

Dan8267 says

If a woman has a one-night stand does that mean she and her child should be denied welfare

26   Dan8267   2015 Jan 27, 7:17am  

SoftShell says

No it means the guy should have to pay for one night.

1. The point was that a woman might not be able to name the father in a one-night stand.
2. Why should the guy have to pay? Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child. As others pointed out, a man has zero say in whether or not a pregnancy is carried to term.

27   Tenpoundbass   2015 Jan 27, 7:23am  

I'm pretty sure the idea here is to make men gay.
Because there's a million Liberal arts majors who's job it is to make being a heterosexual man in modern society a crime.

28   Strategist   2015 Jan 27, 7:38am  

Dan8267 says

2. Why should the guy have to pay? Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child. As others pointed out, a man has zero say in whether or not a pregnancy is carried to term.

The guy should have used a contraceptive. Not doing so and getting her pregnant, is a form of consent.

29   Dan8267   2015 Jan 27, 8:59am  

Strategist says

Not doing so and getting her pregnant, is a form of consent.

No it's not. Consent, by definition, means a free agreement to something, not simply behaving irresponsibly.

30   hanera   2015 Jan 27, 9:09am  

Are we encouraging wanton sex? Out of wedlock sex? Time to go back to the old days, sex with your spouse only and stay virgin till the honeymoon.

31   Strategist   2015 Jan 27, 9:53am  

hanera says

Are we encouraging wanton sex? Out of wedlock sex? Time to go back to the old days, sex with your spouse only and stay virgin till the honeymoon.

Why do you hate freedom?

32   zzyzzx   2015 Jan 27, 10:23am  

Peter P says

3. Allow kids to be abandoned up to age 18

I would allow them to be aborted up to age 6.

33   Dan8267   2015 Jan 27, 12:02pm  

hanera says

Are we encouraging wanton sex?

How the fuck can consensual sex be wanton?

34   CDon   2015 Jan 27, 4:15pm  

Strategist says

Dear Dan,

I just don't like your interpretation of the constitution.

His interpretations are strange aren't they? Even when it is pointed out how/why he is incorrect, he refuses to back down in the slightest. Some people in my office lurk here and laugh at his utterly ridiculous interpretations of the law. They don't understand why a coder, with clearly no more than a laymens understanding of the law would want to continue to publicly embarrass himself. However, none of that matters here. Want to know why?

While talking about a different user SBH was very much on the mark when he infamously said:

you eat shit, more shit than just about anyone on Patnet, yet you have an insatiable appetite for it

Its a sad state of affairs, but this is the reality of modern day Patnet. It doesnt matter if you know what you are talking about or not. All you have to do is outlast anyone who cares about the truth and/or accuracy of the matter, and you will prevail. Its a shame I don't want to take my laymans understanding of coding, and make 50,000 incorrect posts about how to do it - I could be king of Patnet!

In the real world, embarrassment about not understanding the subject matter will cause most people to shut up, but none of that matters here. No matter how much I may correct him on matters of the law, Dan will readily gobble up all the shit in sight, and still sit there open mouthed waiting for more.

Reality is, modern Patnet is a stamina contest and I cannot compete. Anyone with 10,000+ posts on Patnet has likely developed quite a taste for shit over time, and I am getting tired of eating large meals before I log on.

Moreover, as this site has now given up as its primary purpose, discussing (or as was often the case misleading people) about real estate, I feel much less need to be here. I dont know if I will ever disappear completely, but Dan, please consider this my flag of surrender. I will never contradict you on matters of the law ever again.

35   turtledove   2015 Jan 27, 4:32pm  

This is certainly an example of unequal protection under the law. In ANY other context, tricking a person into paying for something under false pretenses would be considered fraud. You'd have to make restitution... Perhaps you would go to jail.

No guy should have to pay for a child who isn't his. The person who perpetrated the fraud should suffer the same consequences of committing fraud in any other context.

We aren't talking about insubstantial amounts of money, either. If a guy paid $500/month (which is on the low side) for 10 years on a child that isn't his, we're talking over $60k! In what other context could a person steal $60k from someone and it not be a crime? I'm unclear about how having a child acts as a shield from the law.

36   Dan8267   2015 Jan 27, 8:24pm  

CDon says

publicly embarrass himself,

A thinly veiled ad hominem attack no more sophisticated than You are a poopy head and you smell like poop.

Honey, it's the Constitution, not the Da Vinci Code. It's written to be understood by any literate common man. Quite frankly, if you don't have an accurate understanding of the Constitution, than you should not have a high school diploma.

It's government of the people, by the people, for the people, not government unintelligible to the people.

By the way CDon, if you're not a lawyer, how the fuck do you know my "interpretation" of the Constitution is invalid? Contradiction much?

37   Dan8267   2015 Jan 27, 8:27pm  

turtledove says

This is certainly an example of unequal protection under the law. In ANY other context, tricking a person into paying for something under false pretenses would be considered fraud.

It's even worse than fraud. The victim wasn't "tricked" into paying for something under false pretenses. He was forced using the full violence of the state to pay for something under false pretense and threatened with imprisonment, again using the full violence available to the state, if he failed to pay even if he's jobless or impoverished. That's not fraud, it's indentured servitude if not out-right slavery.

38   Dan8267   2015 Jan 27, 8:30pm  

turtledove says

I'm unclear about how having a child acts as a shield from the law.

It's more the case of a bureaucracy being shielded from the law simply because it's the bureaucracy that prosecutes violations of the law and it has no way to prosecute itself because it does not want to.

Again the only solution is a separate court system ran by private citizens that can prosecute the state and its agents.

39   Strategist   2015 Jan 27, 9:44pm  

Dan8267 says

Honey, it's the Constitution, not the Da Vinci Code. It's written to be understood by any literate common man. Quite frankly, if you don't have an accurate understanding of the Constitution, than you should not have a high school diploma.

It's government of the people, by the people, for the people, not government unintelligible to the people.

LOL Dan, you are so funny. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution. If it was really designed for any literate man to understand it, why do we have so many court cases regarding the constitution. Why even have attorneys who specialize in the constitution?

40   Strategist   2015 Jan 27, 9:50pm  

Dan8267 says

By the way CDon, if you're not a lawyer, how the fuck do you know my "interpretation" of the Constitution is invalid? Contradiction much?

Didn't you say you just say the constitution was designed for literate people to understand it? He is literate. You are not.

Comments 1 - 40 of 64       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions