Why is that ?

WHEN YOU STOP MENTIONING IT......................

I wasn't being serious. But, you have fun .

Way to go for not caring! You tell em!

I care sooooo little that I don't care that you don't care.

tanyaann my boob pic got deleted and yours didnt.....

Did you say "it's not propaganda", and post a link with "Obama's plans to destroy America" in the URL, in the same post?

How about something a little less biased - here's the Reader's Digest compiled view of the election from a global view:

http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/presidential-election-08-global-poll/article102098.html

Click on any country. Our country is the only one where the poll is even close.

And even within the boundaries of the USA - I haven't seen a poll showing McCain in the lead at all, at any point.

Funny thing about your "They're taking a poll on AOL!!!!"...

Once upon a time, around the invention of the telephone, they used this new tool to conduct national surveys to try to predict the president. Result of the telephone survey? Landslide Republican.
Result of the election? Landslide Democratic victory.
How can this be? Only the rich had telephones at that point in time.

Very very similarly - who still uses AOL? Largely the extremely conservative, who were willing (for some reason) to pay $25/month for dialup when other services out there were $10/month... now not even AOL charges anymore, but they retain their customer base. You see no bias in that?

Try looking at what the rest of the world sees.

I've found one thing: When I'm standing in a room and find myself in the minority, chances are good that I'm wrong...
...in this case, with such a large chunk of McCain support coming from the prejudiced and ignorant, it paints that picture even more strongly, IMO - because not only isn't he ahead (even in this country), but a good chunk of his support is fundamentally prejudice and ignorance based - which would make him even less ahead, if those votes weren't allowed to count.

the person paying child support does NOT pay even half, when they follow their local child support guidelines. This is a proven case more times than can be counted.
Take for example my case. I have two children, and sole custody of both. between the three of us, we receive approximately 700 a month (between work, and their ssd). My ex takes home over 1600 a month, and is only required to pay 88 dollars a month for support. And that isnt even 88 per child. It is 88 TOTAL per month.
I am scrambling today to find a halloween costume for one (if not both) of my children as I have had to put rent, groceries, etc above everything else. I asked her to send me 20 dollars so that I could get them a costume, and she has refused to do so.
Now, does this sound right to you?

The system needs to be overhauled big time, and it needs to be made fair for the children involved big time. This does NOT mean spreadsheets, or anything showing where the money goes. Every single state has a procedure to follow if the non-custodial parent is concerned about where the money is being spent, that requires them to hve the courts themselves intercede and investigate the issue. The payer does not have any right to know what specifically hte money is spent on.
Again, I have been through this myself, as my ex decided to file a complaint to have me investigated to find out where the money was being spent. The courts looked into it and declared nothing was amiss, and I was using it appropriately (when I was receiving it).

I DO like hte idea of their being one set amount figured out as to the cost of raising children. Say research dictates that it takes 1000 dollars per month in order to provide a roof, clothing, food, utilities etc. Then BOTH parents SHOULD be required to provide a minimum of 500 dollars each, no matter the amount of income per parent. If the non-custodial wants t [provide more (like paul McCartney) then by all means let them. but they should be required to provide HALF of the average living costs per child.

And yes, of course, the non-custodial would not be required to pay half the rent twice in the case of two kids. They WOULD however, be required to pay so much for food for each child; and clothing.