• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alaska: Palin Daughter Seeks Child Support

Of couse I am.

The First Amendment doesn't apply in Alaska.

I forgot.

Making threats, which Palin can well afford to carry out, IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH.

Sorry, but you're wrong again.

Just in case you didn't notice, Sarah Palin isn't the custodian of her grandchild.

Yes, but she is currently backing Bristol Palin. She is using her daughter to pass threats of custodial interference. That is not protected speech. It's a threat.

Learn the difference.

And yes, she can not only make any comments she likes, she's also free to file any lawsuits she likes.

Threats are NOT protected speech.

How can a scumbucket lawyer not know this?

This is just an unwarranted personal attack by a member of the right wing consortium. It has been reported.

Yes, it was the right wing that made this battle public, not the vomit licking puppies from the left.

The right needs to stay out of it and mind its own business.

No.

It was descriptive of the entire Robotic Left crowd that uses trademarked phrases instead of creative thought.

The right gets so mad whenever they get told to keep their morals to themselves.... even by other right wingers.

The reiche-wing's views and morals are not the law. The sooner they accept this fact and move on the better off they will be.

No.

Of course not.

No one brainwashed enough to use the phrase "Reich-wing" could ever hate anyone until ordered to.

When the far right stops trying to ram it's morals down everybody's throats, the term "Reich-wing" will no longer apply. Until then, it's an accurate descriptor.

Hello?

It's her grandchild.

Her nose belongs there.

Your nose, the left's Nose, does not.

Actually, the fight is between the child's mother and father. Her nose DOES NOT belong their and her veiled threats of custodial interference need to stop or she needs to do some hard time.

Explain why you care so much.

You first. I am defending the law and the right have a morals of my own choosing.

What are you doing?


She needs to perform her duties as a grandmother.

What do you one the left, Champions of the Double Standard, know about universal application of the law?

LOL.

Coming from a group of people who honestly believe they are their morals are above the law ... that doesn't mean much.

She has as much chance of going to jail for this as your Rapist president has for any of the rapes he committed.

We're not discussing the President. Stick to the topic please. Also ... she ... and the rest of the reich-wing are NOT above the law.
 
Grandparents even have the legal right to voice opinions.

Amazing thing, certain lawyers haven't discovered the First Amendment yet.

Again ... you fail to recognize that threats are not protected speech.
 
You never heard that Clinton never went to jail for any of his crimes?

Amazing.

Probably because he's never gone to jail for any of his crimes.

Was he ever convicted of a crime? You can't put someone in jail unless they are convicted of a crime. This is America.
Amazing.

Nixon And Reagan never went to jail for their crimes either.
 
Making threats, which Palin can well afford to carry out, IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH.

Nope, she didn't make a threat.

Guess again.

Sorry, but you're wrong again.

Yes, but she is currently backing Bristol Palin.

Of course.

If she was speaking against Bristol, you'd be having some different kind of Anti-Palin Hysterical Fit program fed into you.
 
Was he ever convicted of a crime?

Yawn.

You can't put someone in jail when that someone controls the Justice Department, either.

You never heard of Janet the Bull Dyke Gas'em and Burn'em Baby Killing Jello Reno before?

Welcome to America, bub.
 
Nope, she didn't make a threat.

Guess again.

Sorry, but you're wrong again.

In accordance with the law, yes, she did. She did it to attack Levi because he was going to pose nude.

It was a threat and Sarah Palin IS responsible for it.

Deny it all you want. You are wrong.

Of course.

If she was speaking against Bristol, you'd be having some different kind of Anti-Palin Hysterical Fit program fed into you.

Not really.

I am only standing up against Sarah Palin because she made threats of custodial interference to prevent Levi from posing nude for Playgirl. She forced her reiche-wing views on him.

That is unacceptable.

She used a threat of retaliation regarding his ability to see HIS OWN CHILD. That IS a threat and it IS punishable under the law.
 
Study history.

Pay attention.

Reject your Left Wing Programmed Blindness.

I am a Libertarian Teaparty member. I dislike both sides equally. However, I take great exception to the right forcing its morals on people.
 
I am a Libertarian Teaparty member. I dislike both sides equally. However, I take great exception to the right forcing its morals on people.

Hello?

Demanding that the father of a child be required to pay support for that child comparable to both the child's needs and that parent's annual income isn't a morality sane people object to.

It's called, His Duty. It was his dick that made the kid, now it's his job to support it. If he didn't want to support it, he should have dipped a different well.
 
Yawn.

You can't put someone in jail when that someone controls the Justice Department, either.

You never heard of Janet the Bull Dyke Gas'em and Burn'em Baby Killing Jello Reno before?

Welcome to America, bub.

Was he ever indicted and convicted of a crime?
 
Believe what you want. You are incorrect.

I have done dozens of child support cases and provided you with a link to the AK child support agency's website confirming my statement. You...said I'm wrong. Hm.
 
Hello?

Demanding that the father of a child be required to pay support for that child comparable to both the child's needs and that parent's annual income isn't a morality sane people object to.

It's called, His Duty. It was his dick that made the kid, now it's his job to support it. If he didn't want to support it, he should have dipped a different well.

Morally, yes, I agree. He as a responsibility. However, under the law, since he doesn't have custody of any kind and the Palins are denying him his parental rights; he doesn't owe them anything.

It doesn't work both ways.

Also ... $1,750.00 per month for one child is excessive and an outright abuse of the system.

If Tripp is that expensive, his mother needs to stop shopping at Baby Gap and begin shopping at JC Pennys and Sears like the rest of the single parents do.
 
I did:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ter-seeks-child-support-3.html#post1058506725

You're wrong. You don't get to eliminate your child support obligation simply by allowing the other parent to have full custody.

To start with, were not talking about FULL CUSTODY; We're talking about SOLE CUSTODY. These are two very diffrent things.

Moreover, civil Law 90.3 only covers how child support is calculated. It does not cover situations wherin one parent has sole custody and refuses visitaton or joint custody.

Levi is currently suing the Palins over this issue.

I say we save further debate until the conclusion of thosep proceedings.

What say you?
 
Last edited:
I have done dozens of child support cases and provided you with a link to the AK child support agency's website confirming my statement. You...said I'm wrong. Hm.

You have?

Are you saying you're a lawyer?
 
No, you are wrong.

I've been studying the law for the last 6 years. I have forgotten more about Family Law then you have ever learned.

Apparently you forgot what his legal obligations are, you better go back & hit those books a little harder, if you hope to pass the bar....:lol:


Don't like it? Go to law school.

I'm sure I'll absorb more than you have.....;)
Since your are talking out of your lower orifice, let me set you straight....
I'm sure parental rights variy from state to state, but he has parental rights & obligations until he signs those rights away, or loses them through a court order.....
Even if a parent has sole custody, the other parent has visiting rights & has to support that child......:roll:
I'm surprised for a law student that you would maintain this foolish position, when you are clearly wrong......;)
 
Last edited:
Was he ever indicted and convicted of a crime?

Oh, dear, you've refused to learn history, and you also want to pretend a criminal only commits a crime if he's actually convicted of it.

Well, guess what, bud?

In the real world, criminals commit crimes all the time and never get punished. The national statistic for unsolved homicides is something like 50% of reported cases.

Are you going to pretend those people weren't murdered?

Are you going to pretend the women Clinton raped weren't raped, and that no woman is ever raped unless her rapist is convicted of the crime?

What a sap.
 
Also ... $1,750.00 per month for one child is excessive and an outright abuse of the system.

Not if it's consistent with his reported income.

Welcome to how the real world works.

He stuck his dick in the Chinese finger trap, she's not letting it go.

If Tripp is that expensive,

That is SOOO totally irrelevant.
 
Apparently you forgot what his legal obligations are, you better go back & hit those books a little harder, if you hope to pass the bar....:lol:

This issue is sole custody. We're not discussing anything else.

I'm sure I'll absorb more than you have.....;)
Since your are talkikig out of your lower orifice, let me set you straight....
I'm sure parental rights variy from state to state, but he has parental rights & obligations until he signs those rights away.....
Even if a parent has sole custody, the other parent has visiting rights & has to support that child......:roll:
I'm surprised for a law student that you would maintain this foolish position, when you are clearly wrong......;)

[/quote]

That is the right-wing opinion... but not an accurate legal assessment of the situation.

Aslo ... it's also partially an adhom attack.
 
Not if it's consistent with his reported income.

Welcome to how the real world works.

He stuck his dick in the Chinese finger trap, she's not letting it go.

LOL.

That was great. I love the way you phrased that.

AWESOME!

:rofl
 
This issue is sole custody. We're not discussing anything else.

That is the right-wing opinion... but not an accurate legal assessment of the situation.

Aslo ... it's also partially an adhom attack.

When one parent has sole custody it does not relieve the non custodial parent of his financial obligation nor abridge his rights to visitation....
Only a court order can do that.....;)
I don't see how this is a right/left opinion, it has a basis in law....;)
As far as the ad hom attack, maybe, but you brought it first....
I apologize.......:3oops:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom