Quote:
Originally Posted by JPC sr  The custodials are usually only given a pittance in child support and to really help the custodials they need afordable housing and afordable neccessities.
The pittance is small to those recieving the c/s, and it is a large amount to those paying because it is unjust to all involved. |
I was going to ask a question, following the first part, but you conveniently answered it with the second part.
So now I will simply ask: do you not at all see how this could be perceived as a complete contradiction? You claim all CS is a "pittance" to those receiving it (and therefore pointless to receive at all), but is a "large amount" to the non-custodial (thereby justifying your claims that all non-custodials are driven to poverty), which makes your overall point more than a little self-defeating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPC sr If a Democrat wins the Presidency then such a Bill is far more likely and it will depend on which Democrat because Hillary has a different plan then does Obama then Edwards and the others.
I like Obama better than Hillary and I say Edwards is the best candidate of them all, and I like Kucinich too link. |
No one asked what you think of Hillary's, Obama's, Edwards's, or Kucinich's ideas; the point of T_P's line of questioning was to get at
your ideas.
Can you not speak for yourself? Must you rely on others to come up with the idea first so you can simply regurgitate it?
Gosh knows you have been bold enough to come up with your own ideas on child support and the "greed growth" - so bold, in fact, that you fall outside the range of normalcy for 99% of your constituents.
Why can you not think for yourself now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPC sr I wanted my glasses in the pic because glasses show more character in men. And I got this idea that it will look like a Washington Post pic instead of my own and it will make Hoyer look like the pretty boy that kills babies and I will be the pro life outsider. |
So you are now relying on the hope that voters will be so superficial as to pay attention only to the fact that you sometimes wear glasses and Hoyer does not. IF they do look up your issues, they will see "Pro-life" versus "Pro-abortion" and then make a decision.
Noooooooooooothing else you have said is now important. Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPC sr Well I do not agree with any of that interpretation by T_p , and his interpretation is far FAR from what I said.
I said to post their campaign info and their political positions... but not - NOT - not to put their financial info at the public voting places. |
I derived the same interpretation [from your statements] as I was reading.
What kind of answer did you think you were expected to give when you responded to a question regarding campaign
finance reform? Since that was the topic, why would you digress? (A real candidate should be reasonably able to follow a question-answer train for more than 8 seconds...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPC sr Above is incoherant and confused with no real way for me to reply. It is true that I could give reply to each sentence but I am not here to play games with T_p as he tries to twist everything that I say. |
It's here - the inevitable JPC dodge!
I do give T_P credit for continuing his effort and pressing the questions, because I never thought you would answer at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPC sr See, I answered T_p and he degrades into the dishonorable and childish comments... T_p is an arrogent and beligerant disgrace. |
As T_P said, can you please post where he was posting any such alleged language/statements... 'cause I don't see them.
I would
LOVE for you to attempt to employ some of the above "debating" tactics should you meet Rep. Hoyer in person. That would be the comedy event of the year!