Gimme my license back

[Andara Bledin]

Yes lets focus on the wrong part of the statement.

So, did you make that repulsive comment to distract from the fact that in the eyes of the law you're a selfish deadbeat so they took your license away to try to force you to play by the rules?

Talk about focusing on the wrong part of the statement.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

Its not how you said it--its what you said.

Really, it's both. There's a significant gap between wishing some nebulous karmic retribution on someone, and wishing specific brutal and/or painful nastiness on someone.

An eye for an eye leaves both sides blind.

[protege]

This does not make it any better. Its not how you said it--its what you said. Threatening someone with aids is fucked up. And who in the world says you can't get in trouble for it? The right judge or lawyer could construe that as anything from sexual assault to threat of assault with a deadly weapon, depending on how loosely they defined "weapon" and how seriously they took your threat.

It's not just the "right judge or lawyer" either. Suppose someone has a relative dying of AIDS. Some people aren't exactly tolerant of such comments...and might come after your ass with a bat. Don't believe me? Go into some of the more "interesting" neighborhoods around town, and start dropping the N-word.

[Duelist925]

Yes lets focus on the wrong part of the statement.

Which part of which statement? Sever people have commented on several parts of several of your statements.

Seriously, there's a certain comprehension level that I am astounded to see has bred itself out of the human race.

Insulting! Lovely.

Let me rephrase.

"The IDEA of AIDS is fun to THREATEN SOMEONE WITH, because I can't really get in any trouble for it AND I ENJOY KNOWING BAD PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING."

This does not make it any better. Its not how you said it--its what you said. Threatening someone with aids is fucked up. And who in the world says you can't get in trouble for it? The right judge or lawyer could construe that as anything from sexual assault to threat of assault with a deadly weapon, depending on how loosely they defined "weapon" and how seriously they took your threat.

Hypothetically, pretend I never made the AIDS comment and instead said "I'm gonna go find all those fuckers, burn their houses down and murder their kids."

Yeah, that's what I thought.

You thought far fewer people would be offended by that statement, as it is incredibly more likely for someone to get aids, than to be burned to death by a psycho? That its more likely that there are people here who have seen what AIDS can do, either to a family member, a friend or friends family, or, god forbid, themselves? Whereas burn happy psychos are incredibly rare?

This is about as stupid as someone who says "Basically," followed by a long, factual driven speech, and is met with replies of "You said bathically, you're a thoopid derpa!"

Jesus fucking christ people.

It really. Really isnt.

[Ree]

That's about the response I expected.
Thanks for being so predictable.

You make these outrageous, completely psychotic rage statements, and then, when you get called on them by someone who is offended, you start with the persecution complex and say, "Way to focus on the wrong part of my comment," or, "Nothing like taking my comments out of context," or "Oh yeah, totally lose sight of the actual topic by focusing on one comment I made," and then there's the classic, "Your comprehension is flawed and you're all ignoramuses!"

You know what? This is fratching.
It's a debate site.

Unless you are prepared to back up EVERY comment you made, even if it's only a small part of a post, then don't make the comment.

Wishing AIDS on someone may be fun for you, but it's still repugnant to most decent people.

It's still much worse than what you did offer as an alternative.

We can't control disease and illness, so to wish that on someone is just wrong. Nobody knows what can happen day to day when it comes to health.

When you say, "I'm gonna go find all those fuckers, burn their houses down and murder their kids," the possibility of that actually happening are pretty damn slim.

One threat offers a possibility of a very real, horrible death over a pretty insignificant pet peeve, while the other is just blowing off steam with rhetoric.

Many, many people have watched loved ones dying of AIDS, but not too many have had some angry, bitter psycho track down their loved ones and kill them.

There is a difference, even if you can't see that.

[DrFaroohk]

Yes lets focus on the wrong part of the statement.

Seriously, there's a certain comprehension level that I am astounded to see has bred itself out of the human race.

Let me rephrase.

"The IDEA of AIDS is fun to THREATEN SOMEONE WITH, because I can't really get in any trouble for it AND I ENJOY KNOWING BAD PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING."

Hypothetically, pretend I never made the AIDS comment and instead said "I'm gonna go find all those fuckers, burn their houses down and murder their kids."

Yeah, that's what I thought.

This is about as stupid as someone who says "Basically," followed by a long, factual driven speech, and is met with replies of "You said bathically, you're a thoopid derpa!"

Jesus fucking christ people.

[Ree]

Yeah, I don't think that comment was well thought out.

Obviously DrF, you have never watched a loved one dying from any type of AIDS related illness, nor dealt with the horror of hearing that diagnosis and waiting for the ticking bomb within your body.
If you have, then I really do wonder how you could ever make a statement like that, no matter how angry or frustrated you are.

I don't expect you to make any apology for your original comment about people deserving "to die a slow AIDS death," but please, just don't make it any worse by trying to justify it with even more inane and controversial statements such as "AIDS is fun..."

[siead_lietrathua]

AIDS is fun because it's nothing to do with me. Obviously I can't be like "I'm going to cut his toes and fingers off." That's just plain illegal.

....
....

*deep breath*
aids... is... fun....
would you wish someone Cancer, or MS, or crippling mental disorders? are those "fun" too?
aids... is... fun....

i'm just...
wow...
*headdesk*

[HYHYBT]

Wishing AIDS as a punishment is particularly grating when you consider that so many people have claimed the disease *is* a direct punishment from God.

[Duelist925]

It's voluntary because I didn't do anything to prevent it (which I could have). It's the way I have chosen to have things done.

Then, to them, you are a deadbeat. By their standards, this punishment is fulyl justified. Not doing anything to prevent it, to their eyes, is exactly the same thing as just not doing anything period. Had you contacted them and stated "I wish to do it this way, is this possible" They might have worked with you. From this statement, you simply let it get to this point as it would naturally.

Thats akin to letting some bill get to collections, they garnish your wages, and then bitching because it hurts your credit score.

Now...I'm not wishing AIDS on someone in particular, and not because they "don't think like me." It's everyone who rules with a double standard, who takes joy out of fucking other people, just so they can feel like they have a big dick or something. It's people who are ruining today's society with their stupid crap and being unreasonable.

Wishing AIDS on someone, for any reason, is disgusting. Far as I'm concerned, its like wishing rape onto someone. Possible worse.

People who rule with a double standard are utter dicks, and usually have the brains of insects. I am not siding with them. I hate them as well.

And as things usually turn out for me, I'm the guy who can't step out of line. I'm the guy people pick to make an example of. It gets tiring, and I get pissed, and it's those people who deserve to suffer in some way. AIDS is fun because it's nothing to do with me. Obviously I can't be like "I'm going to cut his toes and fingers off." That's just plain illegal.

From what you have stated so far, the system has not chosen to make an example out of you--you broke their rules because the resulting way they would take your money is more convenient for you. They then punished you for this rules violation.

This is not making an example of you. This is the system working as it always does. Again--your actions are, to its eyes, utterly the same as any other deadbeats, unless/until you call to arrange something like this. Then, perhaps it would be different.


as smarter people than I have said, if shes moved specifically to prevent you from seeing the kid, there may be legal recourse. And it sucks, immensely, the situation you're in--I've seen it turn good men into drunkards, and the best people into the most depressed, haggard worst. So I feel for you, I do. But breaking the rules has consenquences. If you don't like the rules--try to get them changed.

[Ree]

Seriously?
In all the time you have been here and posting, I really get the impression that you seem to cause your own situations and problems, but you look for other people to blame.

That's not an attack.
I sense you have had a rather difficult life, and that seems to have warped your perceptions a lot.
I think you make choices and decisions, and when they don't turn out as you hoped or planned, you have to deflect and search for reasons to justify it.

It seems as if you picture yourself as this impotent playtoy of the universe, and shit just happens all around while you stand there, getting it all rained down on your head. (Hey, I feel that way sometimes too.)

You may or may not be the father of that child.
If you are, then you do have an obligation.
Sorry, but you don't get to create a child and then decide you've changed your mind once that child is born.

I get the impression that you are paying support for a child you are not even allowed to see.
That really sucks, and if that's the case, I do feel for you, but this obviously went to court at some point and your support obligations were set out.

Did you have a lawyer?
Did this lawyer even try in court?

Have you talked to your lawyer about this development?

When she took off with the child and cut you out of his life, did you consult your lawyer?

It does truly suck when courts favour a mother who is using her own child as a pawn to play head games. Sadly, it happens a lot.

You're correct that there is no connection between having a driver's license and paying support, but, unfortunately for you, your support is regulated by a government agency, and their only recourse to catch the deadbeats is to use another government agency, the easiest being the driver's license bureau.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the support conditions were arranged and made clear to you, and you are not meeting that obligation, so the courts see that as a breach of conditions.

They don't care that you are giving the full amount in lump sums.
They don't care that it is probably pretty cool to get a huge amount all at once so Mom can do more with it when she gets it.
That is not what you were ordered to do.

When they set out the conditions, they took into account that the care and feeding of a child are a daily commitment, and as such, the parent requires a current, ongoing source of income to provide for that.

Getting a huge wad of cash once a year is not what was decreed by a judge, so, by doing that instead of the monthly allotment, you are in breach.

They take breaches very seriously.
Would you rather go to jail?
That's a possibility for breach as well.

I would say, unless you get a lawyer and go to court and have your say in front of a judge, and attempt to change the conditions, doing without a driver's license is probably the lesser punishment you could face.

As much as it's more convenient for you, people just can't set their own rules when the courts have said differently.

As for the "AIDS" threat, I don't really care for the reasons. It's still a pretty disgusting comment to make.
The threat says a lot more about the person making it, than it does about the person it's been wished on.

Better be careful, buddy.
I'm told there's a little thing called "Karma", and even if you don't believe in that, there is a Christian rule about reaping what you sow, and a pagan rule about things coming back to you threefold.

[DrFaroohk]

Could I get clarification? How is your child-support payment "voluntary" if the government seizes your tax refund to put toward a year's worth of past due payments?

It's voluntary because I didn't do anything to prevent it (which I could have). It's the way I have chosen to have things done.

Now...I'm not wishing AIDS on someone in particular, and not because they "don't think like me." It's everyone who rules with a double standard, who takes joy out of fucking other people, just so they can feel like they have a big dick or something. It's people who are ruining today's society with their stupid crap and being unreasonable.

And as things usually turn out for me, I'm the guy who can't step out of line. I'm the guy people pick to make an example of. It gets tiring, and I get pissed, and it's those people who deserve to suffer in some way. AIDS is fun because it's nothing to do with me. Obviously I can't be like "I'm going to cut his toes and fingers off." That's just plain illegal.

[protege]

In your efforts to stiff the ex, it sounds like you just end up hurting yourself (lost license, for example)

Yep, that's what it sounds like. But, I have a feeling that the reason that someone can lose their license over this...is that for some people, the right to drive is a huge deal. Think about it, would you rather take a date in a sports car...or on the city bus?

[Nekojin]

I'm going to be very, very, VERY blunt here. If you don't want to pay, then why not give up your parental rights? Wouldn't that just take care of the whole thing? Just wondering.

Actually, no. Depending on the circumstances, saying that you want to have nothing to do with the kid (IE, giving up your parental rights) could make it worse. Since you'd be dropping your share of visitation, and raising the percentage of time that the other parent has to 100%, your calculated child support payments would go up, not down.

And, as DrF implied earlier, even if he could prove that the child isn't his offspring, depending on the age of the child, he could still be on the hook for child support, since he operated under the assumption that the child was his for enough of the kid's life, that the kid's bonded to him.

The mother's decisions to move away to another state could be viewed as deliberately thwarting visitation, which is a pretty serious offense in family law, but his entire recourse for that is to take the wife back to court and demonstrate that she's doing this, and I gather that DrF can't afford to do that. So she gets away with it.


Disclaimer: I worked for a Family Law attorney for several years (my mother, actually! ), so I understand a lot of how this works, but I'm by no means an expert or authority!

[BrenDAnn]

I'm going to be very, very, VERY blunt here. If you don't want to pay, then why not give up your parental rights? Wouldn't that just take care of the whole thing? Just wondering.