Peter F

Stop-Loss is the same as Draft. Being compelled to serve against thier will. In such a curcomstance it is their duty to desert.

Actually they have a third option: Claim refugee status in Canada. Fat chance, I know, but if it works no jail time and Uncle Sam can kiss the deserters royal behind. And the best of it is - Its a perfectly rational thing to do! More power to them, I say.

You got that right. I think its just small time media hacks looking for a story. But many suck it up. I still havn't got over Reagan and Mulroney singin'. Maybe Harper and Obama will sing 'We Are the World'. On the other hand I don't think Obama needs the BJ.

Hey Its always good to know where people stand. Now wich party is it that is most likely achieve your goal of tossing child prostitutes in jail? The NDP?

This in response to Molly's : How very Christian of Mr C. Remind me again what party is it that you christians think have the best chance of bringing such enlightened policy to Canada?

It is true that multiple 'fathers' could be paying child support to the same children. But, it is up to the courts to decide how much is paid by each 'father'. Sometimes it is decided that some 'fathers' need not pay anything at all and sometimes support payments are reduced depending upon what other 'fathers' are paying. For example, one of the cases cited by your link Step-parents Survival Guide to the Law, has the judgement as follows : The courts judge according to the specifics of each individual case. Multiple parents may be paying for the same kids but the fact that multiple parents are paying is taken into account. Where child support is the question then 'the interests of the child' are paramount. In the case that I quoted, the judge noted that the childs financial support was already covered by his natural father paying child support so found it 'inappropriate to order the defendant to pay child support '. Some courts order child support much less than the 'child support guidlines' say they should - again, depending upon the specifics of the case. Riverwinds cry of injustice is based on a false assumption that when someone is ordered to pay child support, those someones are ordered to pay full childs support as per the 'guidlines' without regard to what the other poor suckers are paying. And that is simply wrong. Renegade: The child has a financial interest in the parents. The child is dependent upon the parents to provde everything because the child has no means of providing for herself. No matter the reasons, justifications or morality/immorality of one parents behaviour towards the other, there is a financial obligation assumed by being a parent. Because the child is unable to provide for herself, that parental obligation - once assumed - cannot be rejected. To do so is to the detriment of the child and there is no way for the child to make up for it. And that is why a childs interest is paramount no matter the intent of the parent.

Not if you were the parent

Child support is not 'punative'. Whats punative about child support? Its child support not punishment. Regarding single mothers no longer being able to find men to have a relationship with them due to the womans kids...I say its probably a good way to weed the riff-raff out. Besides kids have scared off quite a few men and has been doing so for centuries.

Whenever you like for whatever reasons please you. Fear not - our army is in Afghanistan There will be no 'right of self defence' on our part.

Yes, that is the ONLY reason the father is paying child support. Would there be any other reason you can think of? Parental responsibility is the one and only determinant of child support. So buddy pays child support and all is well with the world. As the court said, If he had have walked out on mom when she was pregnant he probably wouldn't be responsible for child support since he, at the time, was not the father. 'Tony' may have been the father and good friend Tony would be the one paying child support. But he didn't so he is now father and has been for the life of the children. There is no turning the parental obligation off. If you don't want to be a parent don't assume parental responsibility. Taking on parental responsibility is extremely easy to do so to avoid parental responsibility its best to get the hell out of the house and stay out.

True enough. Neither do I. However restitution is usually a one time payment and/or a repeating stipend that the fellow can afford. And, I am quite sure, no court in the land would mandate restitution that impoverishes the man to the detriment of the children he is raising...or his child support payments. Any restitution would come from what is left.

What of them? They're paltry little useless firecrackers that have been lobbed into Isreal for quite a few months now. They were'nt immediate danger 2 months ago and they arn't immediate danger now. What is so effing crucial about stopping them that the hospital and everyone in it need be killed - before hamas fires that useless rocket again for the umpteenth time? I got no problem with the IDF going to kill Hamas guys. The fools deserve whatevers coming to them for firing off explosives, paltry as they are, without regard for who, if anyone, ends up getting hurt by them. Sure, go kill hamas guys. But it is also not crucial that the Hamas guys get killed right now if that means killing a bunch of civvies too. Its bad P.R.. Detrimental to the cause. Makes alot of enemies out of people who weren't your enemies before. Let Hamas make enemies that way. Let them use civilians as shields and expose themselves to thier own people as the assholes they are. Why kill the cvilians and take that onus on Isreal. Patience. Isreal can get them long before Hamas has the wherewithal to be a threat to the Israeli state, and they can do it without killing everybody and thier dog. But, as I have said, they are anyways and I'm wondering why.

according to the judge of the issue at hand: CanLII - as linked in the original T.Star article Another eminantly reasonable decision based upon the facts of the case at hand and not based on 'what-if's'

In the case of the culprit performing a criminal act, you may be correct, Since they do send fathers to prison. But the question here is about a civil action - father leaves mother. No prison sentences and no restitution to outside partys involved. Are the kids to be left in the lurch?

Answer is 'Yes'.

Its not 'alright' for Israel to bomb civilians in order to kill some hamas guys - maybe kill the hamas guys, maybe not - even if the civilians are being used as shields by arseholes. Whats the goddamn threat here that demands immediate action regardless of civilian casualties? Hamas is about to overrun Israel? Hamas must be stopped NOW or its all over? Whats the goddam rush to kill a bunch of Hamas guys in the basement of some hospital? If the IDF doesn't blow the hospital and everyone in it to smithereens those Hamas guys are going to fire some more retarded rockets? I dont see the rush or immediacy. Blowing the heads off Hamas guys with cellphones or the odd commando raid has worked fine for Israel in the past. What is the immediate threat that justifies civilian casualties? None that I can see. But Israel is acting as if there is an immediate threat - yet there is no immediate threat. So there is something else going on here.

The gentleman in question here assumed the parental role for 16 years. He now learns that he did not sire the children he has acted as parent to for 16 years so he can SlipoutthebackJack and be free and clear of any responsibility whatsoever. The courts, and me, disagree with that position. To allow your position to stand is to seriously effect the financial position of the children he has been a father too. Obviously the gentleman in question couldn't give a shit anymore because he had been misled into thinking the children were his. Equally obviously, the mother seeks to maintain the financial support the gentleman in question has been providing - defrauded into providing - since the first child was born. The actions of parents no doubt, have a profound emotional impact upon the children; The gentleman in question, heretofore claiming to be thier father now proclaims he is not thier father and casts them aside. What can be done about that? Well - nothing. In my view the father is scum of the earth letting his anger at the mother also be cast upon 'her' kids. But who can make him behave differently? No one. So the emotional impact of the separation cannot be changed. But now that father is gone and no longer providing for 'her' children, the kids are left with thier mother as sole support. The family income has been reduced probably by about half. As far as the mother is concerned who cares, she can go get a job. Not so for the kids though. Through no fault of thier own - none - they will suffer the serious financial difficulties, wich will compound the emotional difficulties. They could very well have to move to someplace the mother can afford, change schools, say goodbye to friends - at thier age probably very close friends. They will have to give up the lifestyle, such as it was, that they were accustomed to. No small thing. a major role of the court is to lessen the impact of separation upon children. The gentleman in question has been providing emotional and financial support for 16 years. The court says, and rightly so, that the gentleman in question may be able to turn off the emotional support but he cannot turn off the financial support. He has happily been providing for 16 years and has no rational reason to not continue providing. He assumed the role of parent and parent he shall be...at least until the kids leave thier home or finish thier education. Thats what parents do and thats what he is and always has been.

Hmmmm...interesting point. Lobbing rockets/bombs into another land is not defence. Okay. Then the rockets of Hamas were'nt defending anything and IDF artillery/bombs arn't defending anything either. So nobobdy is defending anything. I can live with that. What would this concept of 'self-defence' entail?

Only the mother should be financially responsible for her kids? Fathers, wether biological or not, have no financial responsibility?

Coming soon: Ignatief and Harper consider how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Very wrong. Being a source of income is a very large part of being a parent. Without income the kids don't eat and get cold in the winter and do homework by candle light. Income is important to parents so's they can povide for thier children. This is not a problem created by courts and feminism - this is almost entirely a problem created by men who don't like paying money to thier estranged spouses who have to take care of the children. This is about a guys so-called right to keep his money for himself and to hell with the children he was a father to. Perhaps he should get the children that he is trying to not pay child support for because the DNA don't match up. Then again perhaps not. If he doe's then his ex gets to continue to provide financial support to the children as she and he have always done. You're damn right that there is more to being a parent than money. But, considering that one of the spouses doesn't live there anymore the opportunities of parenting are severely limited...the exception being the income support part. Easily solved with cheques.

You are wrong. He did agree to father children. I know this because he acted as their father. After 16 years the biology involved is entirely moot. There is no turning off the father spout. To mix my metaphors, fatherhood is like the launching of a ship: Once the chocks are knocked out there is no stopping the show. The man in question acted as father so he is the father. Thats how he see's it, thats how his estranged wife see's it, thats how the kids see it. Its simply a recognition of fact. We've had this discussion before. Once the parental role is assumed it cannot be discarded.

Thank you for pointing out that I did not address your question. Everyone in the world has a right of self-defense. Just as the IDF can invade Gaza to defend themselves from rocket attacks, Palestinians in Gaza can fight tooth and nail to defend themselves from IDF invasion. So everyone has a right to self defense.

Huh? Someone gets to assume the role of self-defender? Well of course thats true. Usually everyone in a conflict assumes that role.

Sid Ryan is a leader of the secular socialist movement? I'd qualify as a secular socialist and I've rarely heard of the man. I certainly didn't hire him nor do I recall voting for him. Nor did have I ever seen him at the Secular Socialist meetings held every tuesday night. I doubt very much he speaks for millions of socialists. Being a leftwing secular socialist I think I can speak for the millions of secular socialists and say you are very wrong as ususal; Secular socialists do not dislike Isreal nor Jesus Christ. So, no, it is not true.