Say Anything Blog

Rob, I know that we have had this discussion on other occasions, but depending on the vote, you may or may not have another opportunity at this.  Did the committee do any research at all on who or which groups you could form coalitions around in support of the measure?  Did the committee look at groups and politicians who would be opposing your measure and what the plan would be in response to the opposition.  Did the committee have any meetings with the various editorial boards? 

A campaign for an initiated measure starts long before the signatures are collected. 

The Children’s Caucus has been in North Dakota for many many years and has a good reputation.  This is one group you should have engaged early on. But these are lessons for another day. 

Have you done any polling to see where you all stand currently?  Just wondering.

Puzzle, we don’t have money for polling unfortunately.

And we did engage The Children’s Caucus, but they don’t like us.  Mostly because they’re sycophants for the human services establishment, and the human services establishment doesn’t like our initiative because it means less child support.  Which in turn means less money for them.

It’s not about the kids for our opposition, it’s about the money.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Parenthood is a joint venture and should be encouraged as that. I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Men seem to get the raw end of the deal when it comes to child custody and reproductive rights. It is so obvious.  Especially when it comes to abortion and divorce. Men and children seem to be overlooked on this issue…

It’s interesting that at 5:28 pm you “don’t know who this ND Children’s Caucus is” and two hours later at 7:41 pm you “did engage the Children’s Caucus.” You’d think you’d now who they are if you really had engaged them.

Well Paul, who are they? 

I for one am not surprised that a grass roots effort didn’t do the opposition research.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Paul sayeth: It’s interesting that at 5:28 pm you “don’t know who this ND Children’s Caucus is” and two hours later at 7:41 pm you “did engage the Children’s Caucus.” You’d think you’d now who they are if you really had engaged them.

You caught another “mad dad” lying. Shocked by this? I am not.

Either they tried to engage them, in which case the “I don’t know who this ND Children’s Caucus is” is a lie OR they did not try to engage them, in which case the “did engage” part is a lie.

My bet is they did not try. Why should they? This is nothing more than a bunch of disgruntled litigants, mostly “mad dads” who want to take it out on their exs. And when they don’t get what they want, they sue, sue, sue with frivolous lawsuits.

This is little more than a temper tantrum by people who do not get their own way when they want.

As for polling, of course they do not want to poll. They know what it will show: they are going to lose.

You’d think you’d now who they are if you really had engaged them.

Or, it could be that I’m not the leader of the SPI movement, and that there are other people in the movement who have talked to groups in ND.

I wasn’t aware of the ND Children’s Caucus.  OTher people in my group are, and they’ve talked with them.

Got it straight now or would you guys like to be sarcastic and insulting some more?  Maybe call me a “mad dad” again.  Because, you know, this is really all just about ex-husbands trying to get back at their ex-wives.

/sarcasm

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

What does the ND Children’s Caucus, the North Dakota Progressive Coalition, NDpeople.org, and the North Dakota Center for the Public Good have in common?  They share the address 410 East Thayer Avenue, Suite 2 in Bismarck and the phone number 701-224-8090.  I also presume they share the same liberal philosophy.

It appears it might be the same people involved in these organizations and they just use different names depending on the cause.  For example, the first I heard of NDpeople.org was when they started running ads attacking North Dakota’s House Majority Leader.

interesting

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I have one question for everyone, either side of measure 3.....why would there have to be mandated joint custody in order for fathers to have more time with their children and more rights as to the raising of their children? This is not a custody issue, but rather a visitation issue and can and should be addressed in the divorce agreement. This measure is not a one-size-fits-all answer. I personally know of fathers who do not wish to have much, if any contact with their children. I certainly wouldn’t want them to have the privilege and honor of “joint custody”.

a~mom,

Here’s is the full text of the measure.

Notice that while the measure requires that both parents retain parental rights in the absence of any evidence proving them unfit, it does not require a 50/50 time split.

If a father or mother didn’t want to have visitation with his/her child, then they wouldn’t be forced to.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, under measure 3 it is then the preferred choice for joint custody, right? So why should this be the preferred option when a parent chooses to be AWOL? Why should the absent parent have joint care, custody, and control if he/she is never there? I still say, not a one-size-fits-all answer, this truly should be on a case-by-case basis. Not joint to begin with and only changed if proven unfit. Just because a parent is uninvolved, that certainly doesn’t constitute unfit...and what a financial and legal hassle to have to try and undo “joint custody” when it shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place.

Basicly, is this measure insuring equal responsibility, moral and financial, from both parents? No more of one or the other parent skipping out and leaving it all on the other, and by extension the county/state, to raise and care for children? If so, why is this a problem? Why was it not the law already?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Rob, under measure 3 it is then the preferred choice for joint custody, right? So why should this be the preferred option when a parent chooses to be AWOL?

It is the preferred choice, not the required one.

We can’t make people be good parents, but we can give good parents equal footing when it comes to their children.

If a parents wants to be AWOL...they can just like now (except that they will still have to pay child support).

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So if this measure passes, what would prevent a parent from being AWOL AND not having to contribute financially to the child? Nothing! I am not saying changes aren’t necessary, but measure 3 is not the answer. This won’t fit the bill for all, it should be case by case. The way things are now, nothing is preventing either parent from seeking joint custody. It is just not assumed from the start.

Correct me if I’m wrong Rob, but currently unless the two parties agree from the outset the judge must choose one of the parties as sole custodial parent.  The judge can’t decide to award joint custody.

So if you have two equally qualified parents the judge where one doesn’t want joint custody the judge has to pick one or the other.

Sounds like a crazy situation.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

So if this measure passes, what would prevent a parent from being AWOL AND not having to contribute financially to the child? Nothing!

Nothing under current law requires a parent to be present in his/her child’s life.  Current laws which enforce the payment of child support would still apply, however.

The way things are now, nothing is preventing either parent from seeking joint custody. It is just not assumed from the start.

The way things are now, joint custody only exists if both parents agree to it.  If both parents don’t agree, then the court makes a determination and picks one parent over the other even when one parent is not necessarily any better or worse than the other.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

As I see it, Rob et al, are merely trying to level the playing field at the start of litigation in regard to custudy litigations.

Like the Shared Parenting Initiative failed, so too did your buddy Roland’s attempt.

I notice you aren’t talking about it. I understand why. Failure stings.

Time runs out for ND family law ballot measure

The ballot measure was one of two approved for circulation last year that dealt with child support and custody issues. The second reached its signature goal and was put on the November 2006 ballot, where it was defeated, with 56 percent of the voters saying no.

I noticed Reimers repainted his shed and I was wondering why.

That’s ok as Reimers isn’t the ideal frontman for the movement.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Reimers was never part of the Shared Parenting Initiative.  He had his own thing.

Well over 40% of North Dakotans voted for SPI despite the ND Bar Assoc. spending $15,000 campaigning against it (and the human services bureaucrats spending plenty of our tax dollars campaigning against it as well).

This ain’t going away.  There’s going to be change.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Indeed, there will be change. Domestic violence laws are being strengthened. Tracking deadbeat dads is becoming easier.

And I know how much that much pain those Mad Dads that tried to push this. As for money, I noticed after the November election that most of the money for SPI came from outside ND.

Funny that.

Most of the money from SPI came from individual concerned fathers all over the nation who would like to see a law like this get its foot in the door.

IT didn’t come from a bunch of rich lawyers looking to protect their big, fat pocketbooks.

But I live how you’re all about “deadbeat dads.” You alienate people with that stuff, you know.  You’re your own worst enemy.  You’re not going to like some of the changes coming down the pipe, I don’t think.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Also, very childish how you spam this site anonymously with your copy/paste retardedness.

At least be an honest schmuck and get a reader blog and do your own post.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I bet some of these fathers and husbands would like to see forcing kids to split their nights and days in half.

I bet some of these mad dads would love nothing else than to try and force this onto women to get their way. To heck what is in the best interest of the child. He wants HIS.

Face it. Roland Riemers is nothing more than SPI taken to its logical conclusion.

That is why you men lost and will continue to lose.

No one like bullies or “men” who throw temper tantrums when they do not get their way.

Please keep speaking up.  Your making our case as well as can be made.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Why do I get the idea that “Mad Dad” is probably some fat welfare queen who gets kicks out of sticking it to her ex-husband by keeping his kids away from him?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Even though I don’t have any children, I can’t believe some of the responses from opponents to SPI. Instead of making actual arguements against the initiative, they resort to demonizing fathers who simply wish to have an active and equal role in the lives of thier children. Are there men who try to get back at their ex-wives? Sure, but the number is probably equal to the number of women trying to get back at their ex-husbands.

If women truly want equality with men, then they should at least grant man the same.

Quite right, Andrew.  The problem is that women know they have the upper hand, and they’re backed by a human services bureaucracy that has all the incentive in the world to keep men away from their children and paying as much child support as possible.

See, the federal government bases its TANF funding on the amount of child support collected in a given state.  It’s some percentage of the total amount collected, like 66%.  So obviously, the bureaucrats have an interest in keeping the amount of child support they collect as high as possible.  That way they get more funding.

So they devise all sorts of way to encourage more single-parent parenting.  Because fathers who are involved with their children should pay less in child support since they keep, and support, their children more.

The bureaucrats don’t want that.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Somehow men need to take their fatherhood back. Once the government gets involved in parenthood it takes over. The Gov programs are easy for divorced mothers to sign up for. Are Fathers required to sign something when the mother signs up for wellfare or any of the other Gov programs? It seems to me Fatherhood should be more than child support checks…

This is the same thing the Democrats did from 1964-1994.  They threw the husband out of the house so that the woman/wife could have all the money.
What really happened is that the man is and was denied his constitutional rights, and worse, the children saw this and then gangs began in ernest.

Communism is evil

Rob
This: “Children, even children of divorce, need positive involvement from both of their parents.” ...is 100% correct. I would even argue that this point should have primacy over concerns about how prgmatic it will be with respect to the fact that, “people say that the SPI would lose us our federal human services funding or jam the courts with too much litigation”.

people say that the SPI would lose us our federal human services funding

I don’t see it that bad if the need goes down and the bureaucracy that grows when more families break up has to downsize.

or jam the courts with too much litigation”.

Right, thats why the lawyers are against it.  Because they don’t want the billings.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.