Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Mr. President: If you had a son … ?

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Mr. President: If you had a son … ?”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ShootFirst's Wife says:

    Suzanne, you don’t know what you are talking about. I am a divorced woman who was designated custodial parent with the right to establish domicile. My ex and I had agreed before the court hearing on child support and visitations. Our agreement was as follows $25 per month and my ex could get his son any time that he wanted to visit him, so long as we didn’t already have unchangeable plans. We get into the court room and I was told, “No that’s not enough money for what he makes. He should pay you $680 per month, and that he should only get standard visitation. That’s what you deserve.” We had to argue that we’d already made arrangements and would be sticking to those. We got what we wanted and he never paid me $25 per month it was more like $400-500 he paid without me asking or forcing him to do so. He also has insurance on our son. I went to the Department of Health and Human Services trying to find cheaper insurance for our son and was told I qualified to put him on Medicaid and that if I did I would be out of pocket $0, but the ex on the other hand would be responsible for all doctor visits and medicines. I wouldn’t have to worry about asking him for the money because the state would just go ahead and take it out of his paycheck for repayment. I declined the insurance and we kept him on the one from his dads work. This is what happens all of the time, I know many women who do exactly what the state tells them to and they don’t have to work or anything because the child support takes care of their car and rent and anything else they want, and the state takes care of the rest of their out of pocket expenses for their children. This is what is and has been destroying American families. This was the line that was drawn a long time ago.

    • Suzanne says:

      Which is exactly the point of my article. You are arguing with yourself. _I_ know exactly what _I_ am talking about.

      Thanks for sharing your story. It is a most regrettable one that all of us must work together to fix; and no ones implies the fix is an easy one.

      • Suzanne says:

        BTW, I understand why you’re his ex, lol.

      • ShootFirst says:

        No the point of your article was, “Look how bad all these fathers are for not being in their children’s lives.”

        • Suzanne says:

          ShootFirst: “No the point of your article was, ‘Look how bad all these fathers are for not being in their children’s lives.’”

          You’re wrong, ShootFirst. I’d say you could not be “more wrong,” but something tells me you probably often are.

          No, that is how You read the article, which speaks volumes considering it had nothing whatsoever to do with that. Thanks for proving my first point.

  2. ShootFirst says:

    “Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.”

    No fault divorce in the 70’s. Most divorces are initiated by women since there is a financial gain in it and they are backed by the state. Women 7/10 push men out of the childs life.

    There is no reason for men to be part of a system that wishes to saddle them with burdens all in the name of “for the children”.

    Marriage used to be a contract with enforcable punishments. No fault divorce did away with that.

    • Suzanne says:

      Drawing more lines in the sand that divide us isn’t a solution. Doing the right thing usually isn’t easy. “Financial gain” is rarely found in divorce, quite the opposite in most cases. I agree the state wrongfully encourages broken families. Becoming victims of “the system” is what all must resist and few are prepared, but there cannot be justification for slighting our children in the process, whatever our circumstances, man or woman. As colloquial as it sounds, the children are what America we will be in 20-years. Our children are our first best and only hope in saving ourselves.

      • ShootFirst says:

        Oh yes, it’s always for the children, uh huh… Maybe we should take the guns because it’s in the best interest of the children? They would never do that right….. *cough*sandyhook*/cough*

        I’m going to guess that you are a conservative and that you opposed Obamacare’s mandate, but did you know, that fathers or as the state likes to call them “non-custodial parents”, were already being required to have insurance. Now of course they were only being required to carry insurance on the child, but you can’t have insurance on the child unless the one buying it is covered to. Welcome to the party…

        Ever seen the show Two and a Half Men? Do you really think Alan’s position is a joke? Art imitates life and that is the position MOST men find themselves in currently. They have an overbearing ex who threatens with her attorney every time she doesn’t get her way. But it’s all for the children….

        All those “convicts” you see on the side of the ride cleaning it in prison suits, aren’t actually convicts. They are “deadbeats” who have fallen behind on their child support and have been placed on probation and what not. It seems that the pimp daddy state thinks that it’s not right to make prisoners work for their keep, but “deadbeats” should… how the hell is that?

        The pimp daddy state puts shackles on the men and yell, “Mush! Mush! For the children!” and then when we refuse to do absolutely everything the way the state or the “custodial parent” wants then we are labeled “deadbeats” and marginalized to say we don’t care for the kids. Bullshit! It’s the same crap they play with race.

        You need to wake the hell up and realize the line has already been drawn to divide us. I am TELLING YOU that the line was no fault divorce. I’m TELLING YOU that “for the children” is the line. I’m TELLING YOU that labeling all the men in America as deadbeats was their plan for destroying families and is the line. They have already been doing it for years by labeling “custodial, non custodial”. So pull your head out of your butt and look into it. Or, put your head back into the sand and shut up.

        • Suzanne says:

          There is no discussing with a tunnel visioned know-it-all, especially bitter ones reading their own personal story where it doesn’t belong and hasn’t been projected. So Obama (the state) wins – again. Thank you for your help with that. I’m telling you, stop thinking of youself long enough to start thinking of a country. Until we do, this crap only gets worse.