Child support to be audited (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


respectmen -> Child support to be audited (9/26/2016 8:23:26 PM)

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/paul-hanson-gets-her-wish-child-support-to-be-audited-20160920-grkvm9

The feminazis will be whinging about this one.





dcnovice -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/26/2016 10:07:47 PM)

quote:

The feminazis will be whinging about this one.

Oh dear. They stealing your act?




stef -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/26/2016 11:23:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/paul-hanson-gets-her-wish-child-support-to-be-audited-20160920-grkvm9

The feminazis will be whinging about this one.



Since you're the only one here whinging, does that make you a feminazi?




Termyn8or -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/27/2016 5:41:30 AM)

FR

You do realize RM that a Woman is spearheading this right ?

Or is that your point that it seems out of character to you ?

T^T




Kaliko -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/27/2016 5:48:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

FR

You do realize RM that a Woman is spearheading this right ?

Or is that your point that it seems out of character to you ?

T^T



The fact that a woman is spearheading this is irrelevant. From what I've seen, RM argues against feminism, not against women. I agree that feminists will probably not like this much. I will be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.





WhoreMods -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/27/2016 5:52:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
From what I've seen, RM argues against feminism, not against women.

I get the impression that he sees the two as identical, myself.




WickedsDesire -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/27/2016 7:22:11 AM)

agrees with whoremods




Termyn8or -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/27/2016 7:50:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
From what I've seen, RM argues against feminism, not against women.

I get the impression that he sees the two as identical, myself.


I think he confuses things.. I think he sees any female rights moves as against male rights moves, and while that is true, he takes it out of proportion.

I actually do believe that Men should run the country, and the home. But not to be a fucking dictator. The Man should be out making the money to pay the bills and the Woman should be taking care of the kids. In old days he decided where to plant what crops, how many pigs, chickens or cows to buy and those things bring in the rewards later, much later. Since she has tits and there was no Enfamil or whatever, she takes care of the kids. So she n in the house, cabin, hut or whatever cooking up food for them and he is out plowing or hunting or whatever.

This seems to have resulted in different mindsets, but that is disappearing with our modern lifestyle. I still say Men should run the world but Man does not just mean a grown up boy. The people who run the world are mostly grown up boys, and the ones I consider exceptions might surprise you. The difference is who thinks about the future. There are very few Men.

Maybe RM is one and maybe not. but being boss is a job. Being a leader is really being a servant. It is just that the People you lead trust your wisdom and judgement. You are supposed to analyse everything and make the best decision possible for those you lead. Otherwise you have let them down. If you can let them down, who works for whom ? But like real Men, we lack true leaders as well. We got mostly self serving despots and other nefarious types all over the place.

Years ago my mailman told me some things. we got along, and really did sit on the porch alot, having cookouts n shit. One day we are talking and he tells me about his divorce. They got kids, but they just wanted, well, I guess to fuck other people. They got along fine.

In divorce court, she refused child support. First of all she has a good job, plus the fact the guy said that anytime she wanted some money he would give it to her. There were no financial problems and what child support was supposed to protect the child from just wasn't happening.

She flat out refused to have them take it out of his paycheck, telling the judge straight out "He is a good Man, you don't have to order anything". The judge did not like that and she got adamant about it and almost got a contempt of court charge.

Why ?

They get 10 %.

Not to mention that juvenile court judge who got busted selling kids to a detention home. People in other places just don't fucking understand how it is here.

T^T




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/27/2016 10:28:17 AM)

quote:

I agree that feminists will probably not like this much. I will be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.

I'm a feminist and I don't disapprove.




PeonForHer -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/27/2016 10:47:55 AM)

quote:


The fact that a woman is spearheading this is irrelevant. From what I've seen, RM argues against feminism, not against women. I agree that feminists will probably not like this much. I will be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.


RM doesn't know - or pretends that he doesn't know - what feminism is, so that doesn't make any sense. I think he believes that if he keeps on using the word wrongly, it'll somehow come to mean what he wants it to mean - which is, roughly, 'women being pushy and people's acceptance of that'.




HoneyBears -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/27/2016 9:48:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
FR

You do realize RM that a Woman is spearheading this right ?

Or is that your point that it seems out of character to you ?

T^T

The fact that a woman is spearheading this is irrelevant. From what I've seen, RM argues against feminism, not against women. I agree that feminists will probably not like this much. I will be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.

Nice try, Mrs. Awareness.

Having nothing to do with feminism or feminists, see this Opening Post by the same OP (per another one of his *authoritative* YouTube video links): http://www.collarchat.com/m_4951299/tm.htm
quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

Gotta love that stench of female privilege.

-- Lisa & Cub




Termyn8or -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/28/2016 8:00:22 AM)

FR

I think what RM really means is "feminazi" which means a female supremacist. You know how you don't like White supremacists.

But of course like 90 % of the people he goes too far, and ignores opinion which disagrees.

But there are Man hating Women out there who will fuck you up any which way they can. Even marry you, I know one or two did that. They'll fuck you and suck you, but when you get tired of being their lap dog they will do everything in their power to fuck you up. I have sen this, I have had to testify at a divorce trial. I know.

Bottom line, don't ever get married.

T^T




WhoreMods -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/28/2016 8:10:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I think what RM really means is "feminazi" which means a female supremacist. You know how you don't like White supremacists.

I think you're mistaken: what burns his hole is that womyn have any rights comparable to those of a man. If it was just femdom that pisses him off, he'd be saving his tantrums for the "Ask A Mistress" forum instead of throwing them in here, wouldn't he?




Kaliko -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/28/2016 11:34:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HoneyBears


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
FR

You do realize RM that a Woman is spearheading this right ?

Or is that your point that it seems out of character to you ?

T^T

The fact that a woman is spearheading this is irrelevant. From what I've seen, RM argues against feminism, not against women. I agree that feminists will probably not like this much. I will be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.

Nice try, Mrs. Awareness.


Having nothing to do with feminism or feminists, see this Opening Post by the same OP (per another one of his *authoritative* YouTube video links): http://www.collarchat.com/m_4951299/tm.htm
quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

Gotta love that stench of female privilege.

-- Lisa & Cub



I've watched the video and read (most of) that thread, and my opinion hasn't changed that RM isn't arguing against women. In that video, whether you agree with him or not, he is providing what he feels to be an example of female privilege, which is something I assume he feels feminists don't often acknowledge and/or feminism has helped propagate.





PeonForHer -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/28/2016 3:25:34 PM)

quote:

I've watched the video and read (most of) that thread, and my opinion hasn't changed that RM isn't arguing against women. In that video, whether you agree with him or not, he is providing what he feels to be an example of female privilege, which is something I assume he feels feminists don't often acknowledge and/or feminism has helped propagate.


It was almost laughable that RM brought it back to the issue of feminism. The bouncers of that night club weren't acting - or failing to act - because of the influence of feminism. (Seriously, does anyone think that night club bouncers are indoctrinated with feminist ideas? Anywhere in the world, never mind British city centres?) They weren't used to females being physically violent and didn't react as a result. That's down to a non- or pre- feminist mindset.

Truly professional bouncers in that situation would have stepped in to stop things as soon as that woman headbutted her boyfriend - not least for the obvious reason that they'd have know that she'd get beaten up by her boyfriend as a result. And/or they didn't think that female violence mattered much. Or, at bottom, it was outside the club so beyond their remit. As it was, she got knocked flat on her back by her BF. I mean, really, would she be lying there exulting in her supposed 'female privilege', after being bashed to the ground?

RM blames everything that he doesn't like about women in general on feminism. Nothing is *ever* at fault about traditional sexist attitudes - in which, presumably, everything would be peachy, pure and harmonious, untainted by feminism, for him. The average British nightclub bouncer, the average drunken girl at a nightclub, the average drunken boyfriend of said girl - all being overly influenced by feminism? That's the premise he wants to purvey. It's pathetic.





longwayhome -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/28/2016 4:41:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/paul-hanson-gets-her-wish-child-support-to-be-audited-20160920-grkvm9

The feminazis will be whinging about this one.




I'm not an Aussie but, unless I have read this wrong, there seem to be concerns for the financial position of parents who have custody (mostly mothers), parents who don't have custody (mostly fathers), the safety of children and the public purse-strings (through high levels of fraudulent claims).

Just from reading this article, the picture is painted of a system in need of overhaul which is not working as well as it should for parents (of both genders), children or the state. It's not immediately clear why anyone would be whinging about the audit. From the information the potential outcome of the audit is not clear, given that better collection might lead to higher average payments for some women, whereas assessments more sensitive to the father's full financial circumstances might lead to reductions in support for some women.

The audit in itself doesn't sound straightforwardly like a win for women or men, although a more consistent system would surely be a win for the children (presumably the main focus here). I would have thought most women, even most feminists would at least support the audit, even if they had concerns about the possible outcome.

Just wondering RM, whether anyone has published widely-accessible "feminazi" response attacking the audit? Are there any supporting articles you can post to allow us to gauge what the Australian government is likely to do following the audit?




longwayhome -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/28/2016 4:44:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I've watched the video and read (most of) that thread, and my opinion hasn't changed that RM isn't arguing against women. In that video, whether you agree with him or not, he is providing what he feels to be an example of female privilege, which is something I assume he feels feminists don't often acknowledge and/or feminism has helped propagate.


It was almost laughable that RM brought it back to the issue of feminism. The bouncers of that night club weren't acting - or failing to act - because of the influence of feminism. (Seriously, does anyone think that night club bouncers are indoctrinated with feminist ideas? Anywhere in the world, never mind British city centres?) They weren't used to females being physically violent and didn't react as a result. That's down to a non- or pre- feminist mindset.

Truly professional bouncers in that situation would have stepped in to stop things as soon as that woman headbutted her boyfriend - not least for the obvious reason that they'd have know that she'd get beaten up by her boyfriend as a result. And/or they didn't think that female violence mattered much. Or, at bottom, it was outside the club so beyond their remit. As it was, she got knocked flat on her back by her BF. I mean, really, would she be lying there exulting in her supposed 'female privilege', after being bashed to the ground?

RM blames everything that he doesn't like about women in general on feminism. Nothing is *ever* at fault about traditional sexist attitudes - in which, presumably, everything would be peachy, pure and harmonious, untainted by feminism, for him. The average British nightclub bouncer, the average drunken girl at a nightclub, the average drunken boyfriend of said girl - all being overly influenced by feminism? That's the premise he wants to purvey. It's pathetic.




Got to pretty much agree with you on the bouncer issue. Also can't see how the girl benefited from any "female privilege". She probably shouldn't have headbutted him but she hardly came off best.




Dvr22999874 -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/28/2016 4:55:06 PM)

Pauline Hanson???? What a shining example of right-wing, off the planet, uneducated, stupid thick-headedness, that one would be. she is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan and madder than a cut snake. And the other members of her political party are rushing madly into the 20th century. Check out her policies ( such as they are) and you will have to wonder at the Australian public for voting a scag and her followers for anything better than the local dog-shit-cleaner-uppers.




HoneyBears -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/28/2016 11:54:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

I've watched the video and read (most of) that thread, and my opinion hasn't changed that RM isn't arguing against women. In that video, whether you agree with him or not, he is providing what he feels to be an example of female privilege, which is something I assume he feels feminists don't often acknowledge and/or feminism has helped propagate.

The whole problem in a nutshell with the extremist positions the OP takes, is that ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

I think what RM really means is "feminazi" which means a female supremacist. You know how you don't like White supremacists.


... he considers most women to be feminazis when their belief system does not align with his own.
It does not matter whether they even regard themselves as feminists. If they are the least bit outspoken, then they must be a feminazi to his way of thinking.
Any man who takes a humanist view is a feminist in his book. => Any feminist is a feminazi.
This is the extent of his circular [il]logic.

BTW Termy - if we can call you that - if you were referring to us specifically, you are right .... We do not take kindly to any supremacist-type mentality or belief system.
Not any ethno-racial, Male, Female, Christian-religious/non-Christian, spiritual/non-spiritual, socio-economic, academia, techno-pop culture what-have-you, friggin zodiac sign (altho fire signs rule! [8D]) -- not even in Human supremacy.

Off topic, we thought you might be able to appreciate this profound riddle [:D]:
If a man speaks in a forest where no woman can hear,
Is he still wrong?


-- Lisa & Cub




Termyn8or -> RE: Child support to be audited (9/29/2016 4:34:36 AM)

Since about 1980 everybody is wrong.

T^T




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875