Re: child support

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:40:05 +0000 (UTC), wrat@xxxxxxxxx (the wharf
rat) wrote:

In article <s0v783dr1m9rgbereasjf1n6k8m87ogvbc@xxxxxxx>,
Viking <noway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Laugh away.

Ha, ha. You're such a pathetic ***. "Men's rights, men's rights"
but all you can do about it is make lists on Usenet and snarl about nasty
old feminists.

Hey you sicko effeminate wimp: *** THE HELL OFF.

I've been thinking that maybe child support statutes could be
challenged on equal protection grounds. There are no laws that compel
"normal" married parents to spend a certain percentage of their income
on a child, nor are there laws that compel a custodial parent to
contribute a certain percentage of her resources (as long as the kid
isn't starving, too badly beaten, and not dressed in rags she's a Good
Parent). Likewise, the government sets fair compensation for foster
parents and so on, and it's certainly not 3000/month/child.

Maybe someone with a real legal background could address
the feasibility of that approach.

Laws and precendents mean nothing to them, you asinine moron. Anyone
who's tried legal battles for men's rights knows that. THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM DOES NOT SERVER MEN, you stupid ***.

The underlying rationale is simply to stick it to the males. It's not
going to change until the males walk the streets en masse. And you're
not going to see that in your lifetime.
.

Quantcast