TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

kateastrophic Archive

View 0 posts and 29 comments by kateastrophic on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

But this is Leiper's Fork, which has become the most sought-after real estate for wealthy farms. Lots of celebrities live out there (Nicole Kidman/Keith Urban at one point, Justin Timberlake/Jessica Biel, and a slew of big musicians), so you can expect it to be expensive even if it's rural.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/05/20 04:56 AM
21

Your example is their old house! That they still own and can't sell-- it was originally on the market for $7.9million. Her new house is on 88 acres, so that is clearly a large part of it.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/05/20 04:46 AM
2

I am aware that the idea that she already spent the money on her child is an assumption. I am not claiming that she did it, I was simply pointing out that it in the very reasonable range of possibilities. I don't know if this woman acts responsibly with her finances or not-- my point is, no one else here knows, either, so it is premature to form a cyber-lynch mob that is making demands for how the money is spent. But thank you for offering your opinion in a level-headed manner. It's a refreshing…
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:09 PM
1

You are a nasty piece of work. I, and others, made a clear case for why there are not enough facts presented to make a fair judgement. If she is not spending the amount of money she receives on her child, of course I have a problem with that. But that's not clear, and you are just making up laws and evidence in your own mind to make her guilty of something. I am done talking to you, since you aren't actually interested in the truth, you are just an angry person who wants to attack strangers in h…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 08:21 PM
1

Yes, you have figured me out. Congratulations! I just love it when parents scam for child support. You should definitely be a lawyer or financial planner, since you clearly have such a strong understanding of these matters.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 06:29 PM
2

My mistake for re-engaging with you. Believe whatever you want. Your mind is made up. Good luck with that sort of outlook on life.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 04:37 AM
1

Yes, just an EDIT: and whatever you would like to amend. I'm sorry I got worked up. Reddit fans the flames.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 04:22 AM
2

Re-read her comment... "A check from child support... my first ever!!!" And she is not committing fraud by saying she wants to buy expensive shoes. Those are just words-- she probably did NOT buy the shoes. Most states do not stipulate how you spend child support, including Idaho, where she lives. Even for those which do require documentation, if she has paid a minimum of $1200, then this is is simply reimbursement, and she can spend it however she likes. Not fraud. Thank you for the apology. If…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 04:19 AM
1

Yes. Of course, in an ideal world, some parents would not try to greedily usurp money for themselves in the name of their children while other parents greedily hoard their money to their child's detriment. Siiiiiiigh.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 04:03 AM
2

Wow. I'm not apologizing for anyone's behavior. I'm just pointing out that no one here should be making assumptions about a backstory we don't have, especially based on a flippant fb remark. And since it's her first check, it could be back payments from him, possibly automatically deducted from his tax refund. But you have obviously just decided you know everything about these people, so I won't bother with you-- or your grammatically incorrect slurs-- any more.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 03:54 AM
1

Don't be a jerk about it. I already said the support should be divided based on income. If he is way worse off than her financially, then that should be reflected in the amount of support he pays. If he is not, then I am sorry he is in a financial bind, but so is she, and they are both responsible for their child's well-being.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 03:38 AM
1

I did finally see your apology after searching for it buried down in the thread. I appreciate you admitting to making a mistake, but if you want to negate all the other comments you previously made, I suggest you add an edit and amend each of them or just delete them. Your "retraction" did not appear above the comment threshold earlier. Don't upbraid people for commenting on unedited statements; amend them if you misspoke.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 03:30 AM
1

Your wikipedia summary is exactly in line with what I said. In 40 states (including Idaho, where she lives), there is no legal requirement for accounting expenses. Even if she lived in one of those ten other states, if she can show documentation that she paid at least $1200 on expenses, then that $600 is a reimbursement to her personal discretionary income. All this is moot, really, because I think the larger point is that this is a silly fb post (granted, she's an idiot for posting it), and I a…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 02:03 AM
1

Private schools can be very expensive, especially elite ones. My high school cost more than my (private) college education.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:33 AM
2

How much money does he make? At 20K a month, I imagine that child has an expensive lifestyle--do they attend private school? How much is his/her school tuition? Is the father legally responsible for college tuition, or is the mother saving for it? If it's a public school, does the mother pay a high mortgage to keep him or her in the district? Is the child driving age? Is there a second car payment? Expensive hobbies? Horse-riding, sports equipment, etc.? Or a nanny? And the kids of millionaires …
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:30 AM
1

The problem with reimbursement is that the custodial parent very likely cannot cover all the costs alone while waiting for the other parent's contribution.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:09 AM
1

I'm not sure I would consider the child's education spending irresponsibly-- pretty much the definition of responsibility. But each parent should be contributing based on income, not 50/50.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:06 AM
1

No she didn't. She made a comment saying she wants some expensive shoes, but there is nothing to indicate that she actually bought them. And even if she did, there is no evidence here that she did not already spend her money covering all of the child's costs, even though the father was responsible for half. If that's the case, she can spend it however she likes, as dictated by the law. She may be a selfish mom, he may be a deadbeat dad. You have no idea what the truth is here, you're putting you…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 12:54 AM
1

What the hell are you talking about? You made a comment 9 hours ago, I responded with one comment 4 hours later-- apparently while several others did, too-- and your comment is still there. So I don't see how it is retracted or how I "keep ragging on it." You say you made a mistake-- I have no idea what you are referring to, but if this is how you apologize, your skills leave ample room for improvement.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 12:42 AM
1

Well, I guess I wouldn't consider working a vacation. I'm pretty tied down to my life here now (family, mortgage, etc.), but I've never found the "profitable and easy to get" part to be true. My best friend teaches abroad, but she has her Master's in ESL, and her first job paid $11,000 US annual salary. I have many friends who have worked on cruise ships, and it sounds awful. I looked into international volunteer groups, but you have to cover your own expenses out of pocket (except for the Peace…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 10:40 PM
2

I don't have a problem with fb posts being allowed as evidence, but I still don't think this particular post amounts to anything. If she said she had already purchased the shoes, maybe-- because I'll grant you this post does not paint a picture of a woman who has enough discretionary income to buy $600 shoes-- but otherwise, if this is the only "proof" the dad has of financial mismanagement, then he is tying up the courts and accruing legal costs for no reason.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 08:50 PM
2

The idea that food stamps give families too much money is ridiculous. If a recipient did buy expensive steaks (and caviar? Your grocery store is fancier than mine), he or she would starve for the rest of the month. Most food programs do stipulate what foods can be bought, but even if yours doesn't, it wouldn't cover luxury meals every day.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 08:32 PM
3

I don't think a woman's lifestyle should be elevated above a man's post-divorce, but if the couple jointly decided that she should end her working career to raise the kids, she is no longer at the pay scale and job level she would have been (and he is). Also, you list a 50/50 custody example, but that is rarely the case. So if he makes considerably more money, and she has had to re-enter the job market at a lower level than she would otherwise be, and she has custody (and therefore covering expe…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 08:25 PM
2

I agree with what you are saying about the system being broken as a whole, but this is hardly evidence. There is no proof that she even actually bought the shoes, much less that she bought them instead of covering the child's expenses. A $600 receipt for shoes and an overdue electricity bill are evidence, this is just a waste of the legal system's time.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 08:06 PM
3

I disagree. A question mark clearly indicates a question, even if it was poorly phrased. It was obvious to me what question he was asking, and I doubt you are so thick that you did not understand it as well.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:54 PM
3

She may have already spent $1200 or more on supporting the child that month. Your argument that the woman should have no discretionary income so that the man can more discretionary income holds no water. You don't know what she has already paid for, or how much discretionary income he has, or if she was the slightest bit serious about a FB post, so don't make assumptions.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:43 PM
7

I highly doubt she bought the shoes. She's probably fantasizing. I have made fb posts swearing I would take exotic vacations, but in the end I pay my bills instead. I have no doubt that plenty of women don't spend child support properly (and plenty of men don't pay their fair share), but this is not proof of that.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:36 PM
5

A. Buying shoes is not a crime. Only if she said she was going to neglect her child's necessities to buy them, would it possibly be a crime. B. Even if shoe-shopping was a crime, there is no evidence she did actually buy the shoes. Saying "I'm going to stab somebody" on fb but without a body does not make the person guilty of anything.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:31 PM
5

So if the mother is capable of covering the child's costs, the father shouldn't have to contribute? So the father should be able to keep 100% of his money for himself if the mother is able to keep even 10% of hers for herself? I have no problem with your food stamp idea, but it would be unfair in cases of late payments, where the mother has already paid with her cash (and possibly over-extended herself). Better, I think, to have documentation of food, housing, clothing, school supplies, extracur…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:26 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter