The girl is asking for $1,400 a month.

If she was asking for $14k a month, which he could afford, you stupid, broke, uneducated, young and STUPID motherfuckers would accuse her of being a "Gold Digger".

Good fucking grief.
[Reply]

Hill is on camera?
[Reply]

tv, media, spotlight, not working at subway.
[Reply]

If you think that regular people are beating pregnant women, then you're far beyond fucked up.
[Reply]

The judge hasn't decided anything. The case is pending. It wasn't even implied that he was skipping support payments. It WAS implied that he was awaiting a court decision before he starts paying. Even that, though, was not clear.
[Reply]

Who called her a gold digger?
Posted via Mobile Device
[Reply]

look, im not going to argue with you any longer, but my point goes like this:


i once worked with a guy that i considered a good friend. we even talked about going into business in computers in the mid 90's. he was a good person to talk to. i even once went to a bbq in his neighborhood with other coworkers. they all knew him longer than i did. i lost that job, went on to other things. about four years later i find out he was diddling his kids as they were homeschooled. not even his wife knew until the very end. he is still currently sitting in wyandotte county jail with many years to come.

so you can never say you aren't involved with someone that does really sick shit.
[Reply]

I'm sure there are people doing what he did, but they're in jail. Or at least they should be. He probably should be, too, but he's not. I don't think any reasonable person would claim he didn't get treated differently because of his abilities. That said, other than his leftover probation, he's done what the legal system asked of him. If a subway employee did that, I'd be pulling for them to turn things around as well, however unlikely I thought that was.
[Reply]

in this instance even i would say 14000 a month is well within affordable to him and i would endorse that.

i have no problem with any amount of financial punishment he receives. but as long as he abides you should appreciate what he is doing on the field. it will only help in the future how that child is taken care of.

you should all be pulling for the guy. not lambasting him (yet)

not to mention the fact of, how much can a rookie trying to stay on a team, dedicate so much time DURING the season to battered wife shelters and the likes. i say lets see what he does during the offseason.
[Reply]

I don't "pull" for men that beat women.

I don't "pull" for men that choke women within an inch of their lives

I don't "pull" for men that strike pregnant women multiple times in the stomach.

I'll leave that to people like you.
[Reply]

Because, as with any interaction between autonomous individuals, without a court order his continued provision is dependent entirely on his good will.

Maybe they have disputes regarding amount, or frequency, or escrow of funds, or any number of factors. Maybe they don't even have so much a dispute as an attitude that a judge/mediator can better determine the fairest apportionment and other details.

Absent evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that the court filing is for any reason other than a formalization of enforceable transactions.
[Reply]

that's what i've been trying to say all along... :-)
[Reply]

More eloquently stated version of my point from 3 pages ago. Let's see how it goes.
[Reply]

Except for the fact that the child is 18 month old.
[Reply]

DaneMcCumBubbles reaction to BL's response


[Reply]