Awareness
Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
IF you bothered to read your own OP, you would have found the answers to your question. The OP quotes a NOW representative as saying:
"“Not only will alimony be affected by the proposed legislation, but also timesharing,” Quick said. “The bill is calling for a 50/50 timeshare split. This affects child support payments. More timesharing equals less payments. Regardless if the child is more bonded with one parent over another, or if one parent works longer hours, or if the parent has emotional or substance abuse issues — there will be an equal split. Except that's a complete lie. That is not what the bill says at all. If you look hard you can find NOW's real problem with this bill - the possibility that women will be less able to squeeze cash out of the father.
quote:
The kids should have a say in whom they want to live with. And that person should be able to afford their clothing, food and activities. We must ask ourselves ‘What is in the best interest of the child?’ “ For decades, that little mantra has been used by women's groups to suck money out of fathers while depriving them of time with their child. That's not going to work any more.
quote:
It seems that NOW is opposed to mandatory 50-50 splits, and insisting that the best interests of the child be considered when making these decisions. Now isn't that a shocking proposition? Feminists are advocating that the best interests of the child, not the mother or the father, be taken into account - and you ask us to believe that this is clearly another devious manoeuvre designed to disempower men so that feminists can sate their 'man-hating obsessions'. Bullshit. The bill is PRIMARILY concerned with alimony payments (the primary reason for feminists getting all butt-hurt over the bill) and - amongst other things - does away with the concept of lifetime alimony and attempts to provide a formula for alimony payments to stop them being so wildly disparate.
In short: "If the reform measure is signed, the bill would alter the way courts determine alimony – it would give judges guidelines to decide alimony payments, limit the duration of alimony to recipients, eliminate "lifetime" alimony and spell out specific circumstances under which alimony awards may be modified or terminated."
Lord, you feminists are so transparent. It's fascinating to watch you lie again and again in order to try and gain sympathy for your privileged little existence.
quote:
You have been a very very naughty boy and haven't done your homework. You've been a very dumb, lying little feminist and have been caught out. Nobody with a modicum of intelligence takes feminists seriously, so it's really not possible to damage your credibility any further - it's already in the toilet.
quote:
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously nicki. You don't seem to read or understand your own links, you deliberately distort the minute fraction of the link that you can understand in order to make a false, delusional political point and you don't listen when people (who clearly know a lot more about these things than you do) correct your infantile rants. On this foundation of uncompromising ignorance and all consuming hate, you are insisting that you and you alone can define feminism and everyone else is wrong ...... Oh dear. You do realise the irony of your statements and what a complete fucking fool you've made of yourself, right?
I love watching feminists hang themselves with their own stupidity.
quote:
You are the kind of stupid that gets stupid a really bad name.
*snigger* You couldn't have described yourself any better.
_____________________________
Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.
|
RE: Women's rights groups to rally against equal custod... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread