Nobody can be that stupid and still be able to breath on their own.

So, I suspect that he is playing us just as some sort of joke.

Nobody can be that stupid and still be able to breath on their own.

So, I suspect that he is playing us just as some sort of joke.

You don't think it's FT-Pete-Jetmonkey toying with us... do you...:eyebrow:

You don't think it's FT-Pete-Jetmonkey toying with us... do you...:eyebrow:
Not sure.
but they are good whoever it is.

You don't think it's FT-Pete-Jetmonkey toying with us... do you...:eyebrow:
:buddies: I do believe our "bcp" is starting to show some paranoid psychotic symptoms.

And the joke is being done only on him and not on everybody.



:duel:

:buddies: I do believe our "bcp" is starting to show some paranoid psychotic symptoms.

And the joke is being done only on him and not on everybody.



:duel:

Why isn't your user name VoteJPC? Why drop the C?

Why isn't your user name VoteJPC? Why drop the C?
:howdy: Hi RR,

part of the reason I learned on this Board that using "JPC Sr" got me called just "JPC" and I find that many big Politicians and famous persons are often known by one easy name or just a first name or easy to remember titles like "Jimmy" for Jimmy Carter, or Oprah, Bush, JayZ, Teddy, Hillary, and others, so my "JP" fits into that mold, IMO.

And my son goes by "JP" and I wanted to demonstrate my connection in that way too.

And a lady friend of mine suggested my website name as "VoteJP" which seems to have a better sound to it then does "VoteJPC" because that "C" seems to stick in an uncomfortable way, IMO.

So that is my reason why.


:getdown:

:howdy: Hi RR,

part of the reason I learned on this Board that using "JPC Sr" got me called just "JPC" and I find that many big Politicians and famous persons are often known by one easy name or just a first name or easy to remember titles like "Jimmy" for Jimmy Carter, or Oprah, Bush, JayZ, Teddy, Hillary, and others, so my "JP" fits into that mold, IMO.

And my son goes by "JP" and I wanted to demonstrate my connection in that way too.

And a lady friend of mine suggested my website name as "VoteJP" which seems to have a better sound to it then does "VoteJPC" because that "C" seems to stick in an uncomfortable way, IMO.

So that is my reason why.


:getdown:

:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme
Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme
Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.
JP, Jr. is surely going to sleep better tonight. :smile:

JP, Jr. is surely going to sleep better tonight. :smile:

If I was jr, I would move to canada and change my name.

:buddies: I do believe our "bcp" is starting to show some paranoid psychotic symptoms.

And the joke is being done only on him and not on everybody.



:duel:

Spoken like a person that has been on the other side of the desk in a shrinks office.

:howdy: Hi RR,

part of the reason I learned on this Board that using "JPC Sr" got me called just "JPC" and I find that many big Politicians and famous persons are often known by one easy name or just a first name or easy to remember titles like "Jimmy" for Jimmy Carter, or Oprah, Bush, JayZ, Teddy, Hillary, and others, so my "JP" fits into that mold, IMO.

And my son goes by "JP" and I wanted to demonstrate my connection in that way too.

And a lady friend of mine suggested my website name as "VoteJP" which seems to have a better sound to it then does "VoteJPC" because that "C" seems to stick in an uncomfortable way, IMO.

So that is my reason why.


:getdown:

Your son still work at McD's and frequently walk down GMR with crackheads?

Nobody can be that stupid and still be able to breath on their own.

So, I suspect that he is playing us just as some sort of joke.You're wrong, he is that stupid.

You're wrong, he is that stupid.
wait
would than make me equally stupid for thinking someone else could not be that stupid?

wait
would than make me equally stupid for thinking someone else could not be that stupid?NO. It's JPC. He's just an idiot. Kinda like nonothing or Fred, but worse. He's worthy of being put on ignore.

NO. It's JPC. He's just an idiot. Kinda like nonothing or Fred, but worse. He's worthy of being put on ignore.
I cant put him on ignore.
its like a bad traffic accident.
You know you should move on to help clear the way for rescue, and you know you shouldnt look because its going to be a very bad thing to see,,, but you just cant help but slow down a bit and look.

Nobody can be that stupid and still be able to breath on their own.

So, I suspect that he is playing us just as some sort of joke.

:twitch: He's back?????




NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:faint:

:twitch: He's back?????




NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:faint:

He's been back for a little while now and he's got a few threads out there that make you want to dig your eyes out of their sockets.

He's been back for a little while now and he's got a few threads out there that make you want to dig your eyes out of their sockets.

With apologies to Steven Spielberg...............JUST when you thought it was safe to go back into the forums................

With apologies to Steven Spielberg...............JUST when you thought it was safe to go back into the forums................
What does not kill us, can only make us stronger.

besides, hes fun to poke at. Even Forest Gump could make fun of JPC.

Your son still work at McD's and frequently walk down GMR with crackheads?
:snacks: No, he moved far away.



:thewave:

:snacks: No, he moved far away.



:thewave:
Are you going to ask him to pay his fines or be a good daddy and pay them for him?

:snacks: No, he moved far away.



:thewave:

Jessup?

:snacks: No, he moved far away.



:thewave:Where does his child live? Is he a chip off the ol' block, abandoning child and child's momma?

Where does his child live? Is he a chip off the ol' block, abandoning child and child's momma?

I don't like JPC any more than anyone else, but...

Just because a father doesn't live with his ex and child doesn't mean he has ABANDONED them.

I don't like JPC any more than anyone else, but...

Just because a father doesn't live with his ex and child doesn't mean he has ABANDONED them.
I agree. But, when they leave the area for the main intention of not being around for their child, for the intention of not providing any financial or emotional support for their child (like Jimmy did for Jimmy JR), it's abandonment.

Since Jimmy JR followed dear ol' dad's financial abandonment for as long as possible, I was wondering if Jimmy JR was abandoning his own child the way Jimmy abandoned Jimmy JR.

I don't like JPC any more than anyone else, but...

Just because a father doesn't live with his ex and child doesn't mean he has ABANDONED them.

If I remember correctly Jimmy's ex is dead of cancer, which happened while she was trying to get child support from his lame @ss. Is that correct Jimmy?
From what it sounds like, son is following in dads footsteps (except for the hysterically funny attempts to get into politics). am I correct again Jimmy?

Are you going to ask him to pay his fines or be a good daddy and pay them for him?
:diva: Hello there Mr. Animal,

as I understand it - the law does not require him to pay the fines so he could possibly pay them some day if he choses.

I am not certain if there is a time limit or not - like 7 years for traffic tickets is what I think it might be but I am not certain of that.

I certainly have no intention at all of paying his fines for him - oh no.

Even if I hit the lottery and became an instant Billionaire then I still would not be likely to pay his fines.

And on a similar point (as I am sure other will enjoy) is that I was fined for spray painting the State House and the maximum fine was given which I think was $3,000 along with the 3 years in prison, but since I spent all 3 years without parole and not even "good-time" since I was not a "good" prisoner, so I was not required to pay my fine because I did the time instead.

Prisoners can get out early if they agree to the terms of probation of paying the fines and other stuff, and I refused my parole as one of many of my actions in being an "un-good" inmate.

Fortunately I do not feel inclined to ever write a book about my crazy adventures, but it has been an unusual trip for me.


:duel:

Jessup?

:otter: No, to Florida and to employment there.



:duel:

If I remember correctly Jimmy's ex is dead of cancer, which happened while she was trying to get child support from his lame @ss. Is that correct Jimmy?
From what it sounds like, son is following in dads footsteps (except for the hysterically funny attempts to get into politics). am I correct again Jimmy?

:howdy: It just does not matter whether you are correct or not.

It only matters if I am correct or not.

So I would suggest that people seek correctness from me and not from you.


:pete:

:snacks: No, he moved far away.



:thewave:

Eluding his child support?

Where does his child live? Is he a chip off the ol' block, abandoning child and child's momma?

They live here.

Eluding his child support?
:diva: No, my understanding is that the child support started stealing from his pay check on the first week of his employment.

He does not take my advice of fighting against the thievery of c/s.
They live here.
:blahblah: No, they do not.

And I am not going to report on where they be or what they do.



:duel:

:diva: No, my understanding is that the child support started stealing from his pay check on the first week of his employment.

He does not take my advice of fighting against the thievery of c/s.

:blahblah: No, they do not.

And I am not going to report on where they be or what they do.



:duel:

Hopefully he will not end up to be half the piece of #### you are. He wasn't all that bad of a guy in school. He was really nice. He just ended up a pothead with a taste for chocolate some time after graduation.

:diva: Hello there Mr. Animal,

as I understand it - the law does not require him to pay the fines so he could possibly pay them some day if he choses.

I am not certain if there is a time limit or not - like 7 years for traffic tickets is what I think it might be but I am not certain of that.

I certainly have no intention at all of paying his fines for him - oh no.

Even if I hit the lottery and became an instant Billionaire then I still would not be likely to pay his fines.

And on a similar point (as I am sure other will enjoy) is that I was fined for spray painting the State House and the maximum fine was given which I think was $3,000 along with the 3 years in prison, but since I spent all 3 years without parole and not even "good-time" since I was not a "good" prisoner, so I was not required to pay my fine because I did the time instead.

Prisoners can get out early if they agree to the terms of probation of paying the fines and other stuff, and I refused my parole as one of many of my actions in being an "un-good" inmate.

Fortunately I do not feel inclined to ever write a book about my crazy adventures, but it has been an unusual trip for me.


:duel:

Oh my dear JP...its been well over a year since I last saw you in my office and we talked. But I'm glad to see this...it only encourages me to finish my degree so I can deal with people of this mentality. Your child = your responsibility. Why do you disagree with that so much?

No, they do not.

And I am not going to report on where they be or what they do.but, given his upbringing by someone, anyone, other than you, it IS fair to assume Jr. is no where near his offspring.


Right?

Hopefully he will not end up to be half the piece of **** you are.
:popcorn: Wow, you found a way of posting a dirty word without the censor catching you.

And I do not like dirty words on this Board so I went and censored it.

I would like it better if he did become a piece of **** like I am.

He wasn't all that bad of a guy in school. He was really nice. He just ended up a pothead with a taste for chocolate some time after graduation.
:bigwhoop: Yes, he went down and it was all my fault.



:duel:

Oh my dear JP...its been well over a year since I last saw you in my office and we talked.
:howdy: Oh my, I remember you.

This past year has been rough for me in my auto doings because in case you do not know, I bought a second car and it turned out to be a horrible junker and it sent my Insurance cost way high and I eventually had to take that car to the scrap yard where I was certain it would be destroyed and never driven again.

Now my truck Insurance is lower but still increased by the car being on for a few months and then removed from the policy, so I can not wait till next February or there about to get my payments straightened out again.

The old junker was an old Ford LTD Brougham and that style of car was a death trap when it was first built.

But I'm glad to see this...it only encourages me to finish my degree so I can deal with people of this mentality.
:buddies: My mentality is fully based in principles and morality and I do not believe you will learn either of those in any College or University.

Your child = your responsibility. Why do you disagree with that so much?
:coffee: That is making a huge problem into a five (5) word catchy phrase and that just does not equate correctly.

The child support laws are not saying that "my child = my responsibility" even if others believe it is.

The law is telling us what our responsibility is to our own children, instead of us telling our self, and the law is very wrong in its demands.

If my child was my responsibility then it would not be anyone else's business, and it would not be the business of child support.

:duel:

The law is telling us what our responsibility is to our own children, instead of us telling our self, and the law is very wrong in its demands.

If my child was my responsibility then it would not be anyone else's business, and it would not be the business of child support

So this sounds like you're saying that people can abuse and neglect their children and neither CPS or anyone else should be able to step in because it's the parents' business?

JP, please go away, you are a waste of air.

:howdy: Hi RR,

part of the reason I learned on this Board that using "JPC Sr" got me called just "JPC" and I find that many big Politicians and famous persons are often known by one easy name or just a first name or easy to remember titles like "Jimmy" for Jimmy Carter, or Oprah, Bush, JayZ, Teddy, Hillary, and others, so my "JP" fits into that mold, IMO.

And my son goes by "JP" and I wanted to demonstrate my connection in that way too.

And a lady friend of mine suggested my website name as "VoteJP" which seems to have a better sound to it then does "VoteJPC" because that "C" seems to stick in an uncomfortable way, IMO.

So that is my reason why.
:getdown:

Ahh...Full disclosure, there. I like that in a pol. I'll like it but would be hard-pressed to believe it.
:coffee:

So this sounds like you're saying that people can abuse and neglect their children and neither CPS or anyone else should be able to step in because it's the parents' business?
:popcorn: It might sound that way to you and your twisted perception, but that is far from what I say or said.

I definitely do agree that any custodial or other person that abuses or neglects the child(ren) then they must be prosecuted.

But I do not agree with any claim that a separated parent that has no physical contact at all can be prosecuted or persecuted for abuse or neglect of those children.

JP, please go away, you are a waste of air.
:whistle: It is my understanding that the Governor's Mansion has fresh air circulating there.


:duel:

It is my understanding that the Governor's Mansion has fresh air circulating there

Keep on dreaming, you'll never breathe that air. :killingme

Keep on dreaming, you'll never breathe that air. :killingme
:yahoo: Well of course I am going to have my own air.

And the Governor's Mansion has maids and butlers and Limousines, and I must have a vegetarian cook, and need to get a veggie wife, and a bunch of secretaries, and then the fun and the games begin...



:drummer:

:yahoo: Well of course I am going to have my own air.

And the Governor's Mansion has maids and butlers and Limousines, and I must have a vegetarian cook, and need to get a veggie wife, and a bunch of secretaries, and then the fun and the games begin...



:drummer:

You really are dreaming and I can't wait for the day I can laugh at you. Actually, I'll laugh at you today because I know it will never happen. I went into that other forum you go to and those people ripped you apart. :killingme:killingme:killingme

You really are dreaming and I can't wait for the day I can laugh at you. Actually, I'll laugh at you today because I know it will never happen. I went into that other forum you go to and those people ripped you apart. :killingme:killingme:killingme
:howdy: That is cool, as I laugh at myself often enough.

And I like to make other people laugh and I can take any ripping and much more because I am one hard and determined person.

Maybe you could be the new State Secretary of Humor and Consequences?

That does have a ring to it.


:drummer:

:howdy: That is cool, as I laugh at myself often enough.

And I like to make other people laugh and I can take any ripping and much more because I am one hard and determined person.

Maybe you could be the new State Secretary of Humor and Consequences?

That does have a ring to it.


:drummer:

As of the end of July this year, I don't live in Maryland, but I have a lot of family that does and honestly I want what's in their best interest, and you are not it. I sure do hope though, that when you lose you don't file a suit saying you were discriminated against becasue of your disabilities. But then again, that sounds like something you would do.

:howdy: Hi RR,

part of the reason I learned on this Board that using "JPC Sr" got me called just "JPC" and I find that many big Politicians and famous persons are often known by one easy name or just a first name or easy to remember titles like "Jimmy" for Jimmy Carter, or Oprah, Bush, JayZ, Teddy, Hillary, and others, so my "JP" fits into that mold, IMO.

And my son goes by "JP" and I wanted to demonstrate my connection in that way too.

And a lady friend of mine suggested my website name as "VoteJP" which seems to have a better sound to it then does "VoteJPC" because that "C" seems to stick in an uncomfortable way, IMO.

So that is my reason why.


:getdown:


When did they start making talking "blow-ups"? And where did you buy it?

Ahh...Full disclosure, there. I like that in a pol. I'll like it but would be hard-pressed to believe it.
:coffee:
:deadhorse When one does not believe "Full disclosure" then there is nothing else that can be done.

To believe is a virtue even when things are unbelievable, while disbelief is always a handicap.



:drummer:

but, given his upbringing by someone, anyone, other than you, it IS fair to assume Jr. is no where near his offspring.


Right?How's that "honest full disclosure" thing working out for you when you can't even answer a simple question about your family?

:deadhorse When one does not believe "Full disclosure" then there is nothing else that can be done.

To believe is a virtue even when things are unbelievable, while disbelief is always a handicap.



:drummer:

This is true.
remember all those handicap Sobs that refused to believe the world was flat? They certainly went down in history as a bunch of loony tunes.

Even if I hit the lottery and became an instant Billionaire then I still would not be likely to pay his fines.

So the lottery makes people instant Billionaires now? Interesting. :coffee:

Sounds like someone didn't get enough hugs from their parents growing up.

Sounds like someone didn't get enough hugs from their parents growing up.

or dropped on their head umpteen times

This is true.
remember all those handicap Sobs that refused to believe the world was flat? They certainly went down in history as a bunch of loony tunes.
:diva: It has turned out as is known now, based on the concept of gravity, that the Earth is really straight up and down from any place on the earth.




:larry:

It has turned out as is known now, based on the concept of gravity, that the Earth is really straight up and down from any place on the earth.What time is NOT too early in the morning for you to do drugs?

What time is NOT too early in the morning for you to do drugs?
:elaine: It is not an attribute of drugs - no, it is a logical verifiable phenomenon.

The gravity always pulls (or push) straight up and down and the earth is round because it spins thus the straight up and down push and pull of gravity is equal all the way around and that is why we are not upside down on the opposite sides of the planet.

A jet aircraft is constantly being pushed (or pulled) straight down by gravity and there is no pull around.

Newton said that gravity "pulls" down and Einstein says gravity "pushes" inward, FYI.

So the Earth is visually round but the gravity is straight up and down.

This all is new understanding so many people do not know it.


:patriot:

:lalala::lalala::lalala:

MAKE IT STOP!!


MAKE IT STOP!!!




MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Entertainment at it's finest.

:lalala::lalala::lalala:
MAKE IT STOP!!
MAKE IT STOP!!!
MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:patriot: It was bcp that started it.




:larry:

I definitely do agree that any custodial or other person that abuses or neglects the child(ren) then they must be prosecuted.

But I do not agree with any claim that a separated parent that has no physical contact at all can be prosecuted or persecuted for abuse or neglect of those children.




:duel:

Neglect:
–verb (used with object)
1. to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2. to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3. to omit, through indifference or carelessness
4. to fail to carry out or perform (orders, duties, etc.)
5. to fail to take or use:


Based on this, parents who don't act like parents are...wait for it...negligent! Child support enforcement is there to make sure parents who want to miss out on all the important steps and milestones in their child's life are still there for them financially, so that they can lead healthy, normal lives without wanting for basic needs. It is NOT there to leave negligent parents broke, it is not there to force them to spend time with their child, and it is not there for the other parent's spending money. You want to fight that, go after spousal support. Face it JP, having children is expensive. And while the couple reproducing doesn't always plan on having the child, they still have to find a way to support them.

Based on this, parents who don't act like parents are...wait for it...negligent! Child support enforcement is there to make sure parents who want to miss out on all the important steps and milestones in their child's life are still there for them financially, so that they can lead healthy, normal lives without wanting for basic needs. It is NOT there to leave negligent parents broke, it is not there to force them to spend time with their child, and it is not there for the other parent's spending money. You want to fight that, go after spousal support. Face it JP, having children is expensive. And while the couple reproducing doesn't always plan on having the child, they still have to find a way to support them.
:whistle: You are referring to an ideal and that ideal is not true and not reality.

It is like believing that the Courts are honest, just and fair when in reality they are not.

The parents are being slandered and degraded when they have done nothing wrong and that is the reality even though it is often hidden behind that ideal of yours.

And all the children are already completely provided for with every thing they need (except needing their separated parents) and the child support does not provide anything for the upkeep of the children.

What child support does in reality is it subsidizes divorces and breaks up families and alienates parent, turns parents into criminals, and it undermines society and the child support laws are destructive in every way it is applied.


:drummer:

It is like believing that the Courts are honest, just and fair when in reality they are not.

So instead of us fixing the judicial system, your suggestion is what...to get rid of it? You may want to run for governor of a mental institution or something. I bet they'd accept you with open arms.

JP, what do you honestly think about this health care crap?
What would you do to ensure I didn't end up paying some 11k per year for mandatory health care coverage?

I already have it much cheaper than that for some damn good coverage, should I not be able to keep my cheaper coverage and not be required to pay into the national program?

So instead of us fixing the judicial system, your suggestion is what...to get rid of it?
:popcorn: We can not get rid of the Judicial system, but we could make some big improvements to it.

But the child support system is so utterly corrupt and misguided that it needs a total meltdown and reformation.


:drummer:

JP, what do you honestly think about this health care crap?
:whistle: I wrote a Letter-to-the-Editor (9-2-2009) for the tri-county Newspapers giving some of my take on the Health Care reform, and it can be read on this link HERE (http://www.somdnews.com/stories/09022009/entelet193330_32209.shtml).

That was before I registered as a candidate so I can not write letters to the Editor any more except under special restricted conditions, so that one was my last one.

What would you do to ensure I didn't end up paying some 11k per year for mandatory health care coverage?
:popcorn: The premises of that question is not sound because if you are making a million bucks per year then 11k for your rich butt would not be very high.

I already have it much cheaper than that for some damn good coverage, should I not be able to keep my cheaper coverage and not be required to pay into the national program?
:dye: So you are a spoiled rich privileged white man that worries about nothing, except worried that the Prez might cut your benefits and mess with your privileged position.

Therefore I have no regard for your kind.


:drummer:

:whistle: I wrote a Letter-to-the-Editor (9-2-2009) for the tri-county Newspapers giving some of my take on the Health Care reform, and it can be read on this link HERE (http://www.somdnews.com/stories/09022009/entelet193330_32209.shtml).

That was before I registered as a candidate so I can not write letters to the Editor any more except under special restricted conditions, so that one was my last one.

:popcorn: The premises of that question is not sound because if you are making a million bucks per year then 11k for your rich butt would not be very high.

:dye: So you are a spoiled rich privileged white man that worries about nothing, except worried that the Prez might cut your benefits and mess with your privileged position.

Therefore I have no regard for your kind.


:drummer:



bcp's loaded?


Dude, can I have a grand?

bcp's loaded?


Dude, can I have a grand?
Didnt know until right now.
let me check my accounts, if I have a million in there, I will be happy to give you a grand.


:disclaimer:
Do not hold your breath or spend the money before it gets to you.

:popcorn: The premises of that question is not sound because if you are making a million bucks per year then 11k for your rich butt would not be very high. The cut off for subsidy and requirement of full payment estimated at this point to be 11,000 is $90,000 a year income for a household.
Although we do happen to make just a bit more than that combined, I am certainly not in the million per year category. 11k would be very detrimental to my current lifestyle.

So you are a spoiled rich privileged white man that worries about nothing, except worried that the Prez might cut your benefits and mess with your privileged position. Well lets see, I am worried about affording college for my daughter, I am worried about paying my bills and being able to put away for retirement, and something would have to go if I were suddenly hit with another 800 a month in expenses due to health insurance.

Therefore I have no regard for your kind.

exactly what is my kind that you have no regard for? people that want to work and support themselves without having to deal with government programs?

If the government demanding that you take care of your own children financially is theft, how can you possibly consider it any less of a theft for that same government to force us to pay for people we don't know, or have any responsibility for.

What I'm getting from you is this.
If the government takes from others to give to you, then that is all good and proper.
If the government takes from you to give to others, then that is theft.

do you see your hypocrisy in all of this?


:drummer:[/quote]

bcp's loaded?


Dude, can I have a grand?
as soon as the bank opens and I verify my million, Not only will I give you a grand, Im going to give 10 grand each in small unmarked bills to socki and to TWLsWife so they can do something nice for their kids.

hell, I might even pay off all my friends campers and trucks for them so we can actually get out to some nicer places next summer.

The cut off for subsidy and requirement of full payment estimated at this point to be 11,000 is $90,000 a year income for a household.
Although we do happen to make just a bit more than that combined, I am certainly not in the million per year category. 11k would be very detrimental to my current lifestyle.
:whistle: That sir, is a concern for your US Congressman Steny Hoyer, and remember that he was elected against me when I told everyone to vote for me and not for him - but no.

So now we all get to live under that big-shot Congressman. :buttkick:


Well lets see, I am worried about affording college for my daughter, I am worried about paying my bills and being able to put away for retirement, and something would have to go if I were suddenly hit with another 800 a month in expenses due to health insurance.
:cds: SO GET ANOTHER JOB, get a second or third job to pay for your kids.

That is the garbage you have been preaching to me about separated parent so go be a "big Daddy" as your self preaches and go get another job.


exactly what is my kind that you have no regard for? people that want to work and support themselves without having to deal with government programs?
:popcorn: The selfish and self serving kind that only care about their own self interest and dismisses everybody else.


If the government demanding that you take care of your own children financially is theft, how can you possibly consider it any less of a theft for that same government to force us to pay for people we don't know, or have any responsibility for.
:bigwhoop: You are not paying for anyone else and the taxes are not yours.

Clearly the gov benefits continue in spite of your disapproval so it is not your responsibility and you are not involved in that.



What I'm getting from you is this.
If the government takes from others to give to you, then that is all good and proper.
If the government takes from you to give to others, then that is theft.

do you see your hypocrisy in all of this?
:diva: There is no hypocrisy in it at all.

Gov is required to pay for the welfare of the population, and individuals are not required to pay for gov programs.

It is a huge opposite that you are mis-using to justify injustices.


:drummer:

Wow, you really just have no clue how things work.

but let me see if I can sum it up.
If I end up paying so much more in tax to support some other family, it should be my responsibility to work a second or third job to support that family, while they maintain the right not to support themselves?

and, my money is really just all the governments money so I should have no say how it is spent, or how much they can take?

and by the way, if its a requirement under the constitution that the government takes care of everyone and gives them everything (which its not) and at the same time, I'm not required to pay for these programs for the leaches on society, where exactly is the government supposed to get their money from to pay for these unconstitutional programs?

personally, I think that we should all quit working and see what the entitled class does when the money dries up.

JPC is one deranged little man for sure.

:popcorn: We can not get rid of the Judicial system, but we could make some big improvements to it.

But the child support system is so utterly corrupt and misguided that it needs a total meltdown and reformation.


:drummer:

so your reformation of that is to get rid of it, while fixing the remainder of the judicial system?

You are not paying for anyone else and the taxes are not yours.That's it, that's good government.

"Your money is not yours". Smart, Jimmy.

:rolleyes:

so your reformation of that is to get rid of it, while fixing the remainder of the judicial system?
:buddies: That is correct.




:drummer:

:buddies: That is correct.




:drummer:

Why wouldn't you just try to fix the entire judicial system? What is so specific about that one thing that it deserves to be removed from judicial jurisdiction?

:cds: SO GET ANOTHER JOB, get a second or third job to pay for your kids.

That is the garbage you have been preaching to me about separated parent so go be a "big Daddy" as your self preaches and go get another job.

Let's explore this for a moment:

On one hand we have someone who doesn't work, and everyone says "get job".

On the other hand, we have someone who has a job, making a comfortable living, but gets dragged into substandard living by virtue of government action.

I don't expect you to see the difference, but I expect the sane people in this forum can see it, so I just wanted to underline the point for everyone. I will not waste my time trying to convince you, however, as I've discovered it's an exercise in futility to get you to see your logical inconsistancies and paradoxes.


The selfish and self serving kind that only care about their own self interest and dismisses everybody else.

Ok...

I'm sure that everyone (besides VoteJP) sees the irony, so I'm going to leave it at that.

You are not paying for anyone else and the taxes are not yours.


If you want a job in government - especially a job that places you in a position of power, where that power is bestowed by the people ... and those people can just as easily take that power away - you might want to learn WHERE tax money comes from and who it belongs to.


There is no hypocrisy in it at all.

Actually there is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in what you said. It is, in fact, one of the most hypocritical things I've ever seen posted in these forums, and I've seen some mind-blowing #### in the hypocrisy department around here. It was a mind boggling amount of hypocrisy. It was so hypocritical that one must wear a Hazmat suit, just to read it. It's a googolplex of hypocrisy. It is a swirling vortex of hypocrisy. It is a hypocrisy singularity around which even light cannot escape. It is the cataclysm that occurs when the irresistible force of hypocrisy encounters an immovable object of hypocrisy.

Gov is required to pay for the welfare of the population, and individuals are not required to pay for gov programs.


You make two interesting statements here and I want you to consider each very carefully.

First you say "Government is required to pay for the welfare of the population". I disagree with this, but this isn't the point I want to argue, so let's assume for a moment that the statement is true...

In the very same breath you say: "Individuals are not required to pay for government programs".


So my question to you is this: If government must pay for the welfare of the people... but people are not required to pay for these programs, where exactly do you think the money comes from?


Is there a mysterious magical money tree in Annapolis or DC?

Does it rain money in Annapolis and DC?


If you can answer this question to my satisfaction, You will have won my vote.

Why wouldn't you just try to fix the entire judicial system? What is so specific about that one thing that it deserves to be removed from judicial jurisdiction?
:popcorn: Because Child support is corrupt to its foundation and the Judicial system is corrupted from the top down.

As Governor then I could make healthy improvements to the Judiciary by Executive orders and pardons and in 4 years very much could be improved.

But the child support is rotten from its base in that it is immoral and destructive to society and there is no way and no reform that can turn stealing into a virtue.

We do have to have law and order so the Judiciary is required and rightly so.

But we do not have to have the ignorant and destructive laws like child support.



:drummer:

:popcorn: Because Child support is corrupt to its foundation and the Judicial system is corrupted from the top down.

As Governor then I could make healthy improvements to the Judiciary by Executive orders and pardons and in 4 years very much could be improved.

But the child support is rotten from its base in that it is immoral and destructive to society and there is no way and no reform that can turn stealing into a virtue.

We do have to have law and order so the Judiciary is required and rightly so.

But we do not have to have the ignorant and destructive laws like child support.



:drummer:

Oh ok, so basically what you advocate is that I bang as many women as I want, knock as many of them up as I can, and I should not be responsible for any of the children that they have as a result. Or even in a situation where I was married and we had say, 8 kids, and the mother gets the 8 children...I would not be required to pay any money whatsoever to take care of them.

Gotcha. And you're saying that child support laws are ignorant and destructive? The LACK of child support laws would be ignorant and destructive. Anyone who isn't a total moron would understand that.

:blahblah:

I'm sure that everyone (besides VoteJP) sees the irony, so I'm going to leave it at that.


It is, in fact, one of the most hypocritical things I've ever seen posted in these forums,
:howdy: I posted all that stuff just to pick at "bcp" since he is such an irritating jerk.

Most of it was meant to be facetious or funny and not to be taken so literally.


First you say "Government is required to pay for the welfare of the population". I disagree with this, but this isn't the point I want to argue, so let's assume for a moment that the statement is true...

In the very same breath you say: "Individuals are not required to pay for government programs".

So my question to you is this: If government must pay for the welfare of the people... but people are not required to pay for these programs, where exactly do you think the money comes from?

Is there a mysterious magical money tree in Annapolis or DC?

Does it rain money in Annapolis and DC?
:whistle: Tax money comes from the group (the population) and not from individual persons.

So no individual owns the tax money and gov programs are paid for by the group (by all Americans).

In our past history Political leaders and campaigns have declared all tax money in personal terminologies like it is "your money" and "our money" and "my tax dollars" and etc, but our form of gov does not view taxes in that political way.

And as we know there are many Politicians that say it is the people's money and then spend it differently because their words do not match up with reality.

I simply try to be honest and forthright so the lies like that do not come from me.

Our gov and the USA is not a true democracy (and thank God it is not) because it is a "Republic". In such the people get to vote for individual Representatives and then the democracy ends there as the Representative becomes the one who controls the tax money and the tax payers have no vote and no say in that money being spent.

And this is not a mean or arrogant opinion of mine as it is rather well explained in documents like the old "Federalist Papers" and in Supreme Court decisions and the true arrogance is in political leaders that still provoke the rabble by claiming the tax money is theirs to command.

It is that twisted perspective that allows a person like "bcp" to brag (or complain) about his money helping to pay the welfare of needy American citizens when in reality the selfish ignorant Man would not help his own neighbor with his own money.

Tax money is not money that is freely given and it does not belong to any individual.


:drummer:

Oh ok, so basically what you advocate is that I bang as many women as I want, knock as many of them up as I can, and I should not be responsible for any of the children that they have as a result. Or even in a situation where I was married and we had say, 8 kids, and the mother gets the 8 children...I would not be required to pay any money whatsoever to take care of them.

Gotcha. And you're saying that child support laws are ignorant and destructive? The LACK of child support laws would be ignorant and destructive. Anyone who isn't a total moron would understand that.
:whistle: What I am truly saying is JUST just to separate the gov and the Courts from those family squabbles because it is the job of the individuals involved to work out their own particulars about their own children and the law has now made a huge mess out of the Court's interference of family matters.

So in your example; if you have as many children as you can by as many women as will let you (women are not involuntarily impregnated in this example) then you your self will have to make your self relevant to the mothers and to the children or else you will be excluded and shut out by your own inaction and your own non participation and that is all the motivation any parent needs to turn around and get involved in raising their own children.

But instead the misguided custody and child support laws interfere with the normal and healthy relationships between the parents and between the parents and their children and that law is immoral and destructive to society and to families.

And the same applies to your second example; of a couple having 8 kids then if one leaves than that one which leaves is the one getting cheated out of their own family and loses their own children. And all families have marital troubles and parenting troubles which is normal and expected in human relationships, but the law and Courts escalate the divisions and the law turn simple problems into more divorces and into broken families and no way to reconcile the problems because we have Courts and laws that stand in the divide.

I am all for parents taking care of their own children, but the ignorant child support and custody laws prevent the parents from actually being parents because the laws are destructive and based in profound ignorance.

Instead of trying to make separation and divorce easy we need to start making laws that protect and defend the family unit and not the family divided as is being done now.



:drummer:

:whistle: What I am truly saying is JUST just to separate the gov and the Courts from those family squabbles because it is the job of the individuals involved to work out their own particulars about their own children and the law has now made a huge mess out of the Court's interference of family matters.

So in your example; if you have as many children as you can by as many women as will let you (women are not involuntarily impregnated in this example) then you your self will have to make your self relevant to the mothers and to the children or else you will be excluded and shut out by your own inaction and your own non participation and that is all the motivation any parent needs to turn around and get involved in raising their own children.

But instead the misguided custody and child support laws interfere with the normal and healthy relationships between the parents and between the parents and their children and that law is immoral and destructive to society and to families.

And the same applies to your second example; of a couple having 8 kids then if one leaves than that one which leaves is the one getting cheated out of their own family and loses their own children. And all families have marital troubles and parenting troubles which is normal and expected in human relationships, but the law and Courts escalate the divisions and the law turn simple problems into more divorces and into broken families and no way to reconcile the problems because we have Courts and laws that stand in the divide.

I am all for parents taking care of their own children, but the ignorant child support and custody laws prevent the parents from actually being parents because the laws are destructive and based in profound ignorance.

Instead of trying to make separation and divorce easy we need to start making laws that protect and defend the family unit and not the family divided as is being done now.



:drummer:
What if the non custodial just doesn't care he/she is cut off from their family and will not support them?

:whistle: What I am truly saying is JUST just to separate the gov and the Courts from those family squabbles because it is the job of the individuals involved to work out their own particulars about their own children and the law has now made a huge mess out of the Court's interference of family matters.

So in your example; if you have as many children as you can by as many women as will let you (women are not involuntarily impregnated in this example) then you your self will have to make your self relevant to the mothers and to the children or else you will be excluded and shut out by your own inaction and your own non participation and that is all the motivation any parent needs to turn around and get involved in raising their own children.

But instead the misguided custody and child support laws interfere with the normal and healthy relationships between the parents and between the parents and their children and that law is immoral and destructive to society and to families.

And the same applies to your second example; of a couple having 8 kids then if one leaves than that one which leaves is the one getting cheated out of their own family and loses their own children. And all families have marital troubles and parenting troubles which is normal and expected in human relationships, but the law and Courts escalate the divisions and the law turn simple problems into more divorces and into broken families and no way to reconcile the problems because we have Courts and laws that stand in the divide.

I am all for parents taking care of their own children, but the ignorant child support and custody laws prevent the parents from actually being parents because the laws are destructive and based in profound ignorance.

Instead of trying to make separation and divorce easy we need to start making laws that protect and defend the family unit and not the family divided as is being done now.



:drummer:

For my first example, what if the guy sincerely doesn't care? He left some sperm and it happened to become a kid. If he didn't know the child existed, it wouldn't bother him remotely. So why should he care? What if he doesn't want to care? The woman is stuck raising the kid by herself with no help at all. You are basing your ideals on all people being inherently good and responsible, while this is not the case at all. You are naive to think otherwise.

Second example, same thing applies. What if he just wants to run off with some hot stripper and move to Cancun and leave the mother high and dry? What if the mother was a stay-at-home mom and he made all the money? If there is no law to make the father responsible, then her and her 8 children are screwed.

The courts are not needed in all situations. The laws are there when the two sides can't come an an agreement! If the two parents come to an agreement with money and custody, then there isn't a problem and isn't a need for the courts to get involved. It's called settling. When agreements CANT be reached, the court system is called upon. Maybe it's the father wanting to stiff the mother for money but still wanting a bunch of visitation/custody rights. Maybe it's the mother wanting to keep custody to a minimum and still expecting the father to pay a buttload of money.

You are holding out hope that agreements can be reached! The courts are used when this doesn't work! Some sort of mediation is better than none. If you let irrational parents battle it out, you'd probably end up with situations where the father offers no child support but still wants to see the kid as much as possible, the mother wanting as much child support as possible while limiting the father's visitation, with neither of them seeing eye to eye. What happens from that? Kidnapping your own child could be a possibility. The kids would be put through way too much crap if the two parents couldn't get along and refused to negotiate.

So again, the court system as it is may not be the perfect way to decide on child custody/support issues, but a court system is better than no system at all. You're living in the world of a naive child and you need to wake up and smell reality.

:whistle: Tax money comes from the group (the population) and not from individual persons.

So no individual owns the tax money and gov programs are paid for by the group (by all Americans).

Well, unfortunatley the group is made up of individuals, and individuals, typically, don't liked being robbed of their hard earned money - especially when we have to watch that hard earned money given away to a bunch of freeloading degenerates.


Our gov and the USA is not a true democracy (and thank God it is not) because it is a "Republic". In such the people get to vote for individual Representatives and then the democracy ends there as the Representative becomes the one who controls the tax money and the tax payers have no vote and no say in that money being spent.

And this is not a mean or arrogant opinion of mine as it is rather well explained in documents like the old "Federalist Papers" and in Supreme Court decisions and the true arrogance is in political leaders that still provoke the rabble by claiming the tax money is theirs to command.

Thanks for the civics lesson.

It is that twisted perspective that allows a person like "bcp" to brag (or complain) about his money helping to pay the welfare of needy American citizens when in reality the selfish ignorant Man would not help his own neighbor with his own money.

I have no problem helping my fellow man, if they are truly needy. Which is why I donate to charity when I can and I sometimes do volunteer work - (although admittedly not as much as I used to). My problem stems from the fact that I'm physically forced to give up a substantial portion of my paycheck every week. This is money that I could be using to better the lives myself and my children. I could afford to finish college, or terrace my yard, or give to the Church or whatever. Incidentally, all of which would help my community either directly or indirectly.

But instead I have to watch it go 'bye-bye' and some of it - whether you want to admit this or not - goes into the hands of people who are little more than parasites on society. And I, personally, get precious little benefit from this money - definitey not worth what I was forced to pay into it.



Here's the funniest dilemma of all: Most of the "problems" that tax revenue supposedly "fixes" are things that wouldn't be problems in the first place if the goddam government kept their goddam hands out of people's lives and pockets.

Well, unfortunatley the group is made up of individuals, and individuals, typically, don't liked being robbed of their hard earned money - especially when we have to watch that hard earned money given away to a bunch of freeloading degenerates.
The "group" pays for non-members. Interesting concept, is it not?

What if the non custodial just doesn't care he/she is cut off from their family and will not support them?
:bigwhoop: Honestly, that equation is not humanly possible, unless the parent is truly mentally deranged which is a different subject.

All human parents care about and even love their own children even if they deny it them self.

Parents say they do not care when they feel powerless, but it is never true.

It is because you are viewing the separated parent(s) as like animals or sub human is why that perspective is wrong and distorted.

All human parents do care deeply about their own children and it is impossible for the parent to stop them self from doing so.

It is a part of humanity while your saying quoted above is inhuman.


:drummer:

:bigwhoop: Honestly, that equation is not humanly possible, unless the parent is truly mentally deranged which is a different subject.

It can - and does - happen ALL THE TIME.


I have intimate knowledge of at least 3 cases where one of the parents have bailed out completely. I have extremely intimate knowledge of at least 1 case where BOTH parents have bugged out, and the grandparent is forced to deal with the situation.

You are either blind or you're outright lying to claim this isn't possible.


And neither one of these are desirable traits for gubernatorial candidates.


All human parents care about and even love their own children even if they deny it them self.

Wrong. Not all. No they don't.

Parents say they do not care when they feel powerless, but it is never true.

Wrong. Sometimes it is true.

It is because you are viewing the separated parent(s) as like animals or sub human is why that perspective is wrong and distorted.

Wrong. Nobody views a separated parent as animals or subhuman. Some of us are separated parents.

All human parents do care deeply about their own children and it is impossible for the parent to stop them self from doing so.

Wrong. Not all. And it's not impossible.

It is a part of humanity while your saying quoted above is inhuman.

I agree that it's inhuman to not love and care for your children, but it's a cold hard fact of ####ing life that there are people who don't.

I'm speaking from unfortunate and horrifying experience on the subject at hand.

:bigwhoop: Honestly, that equation is not humanly possible, unless the parent is truly mentally deranged which is a different subject.


So, your excuse for not supporting your child at all would be???

I understand your theory that the government is wrong in child care law to an extent. The sad part is that it does have to be done because of people like you.
What I cant understand, and based on your comment above, you cant understand either, is why you didnt send what you personally could afford in the way of support.

I just dont know of any parents that could watch their children go without just so they could make some weak ass statement to the government.

You are truely a small man among men.

For my first example, what if the guy sincerely doesn't care? He left some sperm and it happened to become a kid.
:popcorn: That is just your own dirty hateful perspective and it is not real.

A father is not a sperm donor and all parents always care about their own children.

Child support is just dirty thieves and no one likes a thief.

Second example, same thing applies. What if he just wants to run off with some hot stripper and move to Cancun and leave the mother high and dry? What if the mother was a stay-at-home mom and he made all the money? If there is no law to make the father responsible, then her and her 8 children are screwed.
:popcorn: Such a Man would be screwing himself, and there are lots of resources for the custodial and for the children so no one is deserted in the USA.

And your example is an extreme in that most parents pay the thieving child support and not one child in the USA is lacking any thing the child needs except by the neglect or abuse by the custodial.


The courts are not needed in all situations.
:popcorn: The Courts are for law and order and it was a mistake to put the Courts into the middle of family squabbles.

If you let irrational parents battle it out, you'd probably end up with situations where the father offers no child support but still wants to see the kid as much as possible, the mother wanting as much child support as possible while limiting the father's visitation, with neither of them seeing eye to eye. What happens from that?
:howdy: That is what divorce and separation is all about and it is not to be made into a nice comfortable Court case.

People work out everything as it was since Adam and Eve without the Court.


Kidnapping your own child could be a possibility. The kids would be put through way too much crap if the two parents couldn't get along and refused to negotiate.
:popcorn: That "kidnapping" is what we have now, with one parent being given custody and the forcibly separated parents being forced to pay the ransom of child support or never see their kids again.

The laws are horribly ignorant and family destructive.


:drummer:

It can - and does - happen ALL THE TIME.

I have intimate knowledge of at least 3 cases where one of the parents have bailed out completely. I have extremely intimate knowledge of at least 1 case where BOTH parents have bugged out, and the grandparent is forced to deal with the situation.

You are either blind or you're outright lying to claim this isn't possible.

I agree that it's inhuman to not love and care for your children, but it's a cold hard fact of ####ing life that there are people who don't.

I'm speaking from unfortunate and horrifying experience on the subject at hand.
:howdy: The parents run from the horrible law and not from their children.

And leaving the children with Grand-parents is providing in full to the children.



:drummer:

What I cant understand, and based on your comment above, you cant understand either, is why you didnt send what you personally could afford in the way of support.
:popcorn: Because it is socially and morally and ethically and spiritually WRONG to pay a thief.

It is wrong to even pay a thief a small amount.

Of course child support is collected under brute force so it is not a voluntary payment and that it a robbery and not truly "giving" to the thieves.

The parents that do pay are being robbed.


I just dont know of any parents that could watch their children go without just so they could make some weak ass statement to the government.
:whistle: No child is going without, and that entire scenario is just ONLY in your twisted perspective.


:drummer:

:howdy: The parents run from the horrible law and not from their children.





:drummer:

So when you were doing all that running from the horrible law, did you at least call your son or maybe send him some money? I'm sure you didn't, you are so full of BS, you were running from your son but of course you're going to say you were running from the law, making a statement, but the only person that your statement affected was your son. You're such a loser.

:popcorn: That is just your own dirty hateful perspective and it is not real.

A father is not a sperm donor and all parents always care about their own children.

Child support is just dirty thieves and no one likes a thief.

No, it's not dirty and hateful! It's REALITY! I know so many times where this has happened and if not for the woman taking the guy to court, he would have had nothing to do with the baby and would not have helped the mother at all. You're naive.


:popcorn: Such a Man would be screwing himself, and there are lots of resources for the custodial and for the children so no one is deserted in the USA.

And your example is an extreme in that most parents pay the thieving child support and not one child in the USA is lacking any thing the child needs except by the neglect or abuse by the custodial.

So basically what you're saying is that if it's called "child support" it's "thieving" but if the father opts to pay for his child then it's legit? Or do you advocate fathers never having to pay for their children?


:popcorn: The Courts are for law and order and it was a mistake to put the Courts into the middle of family squabbles.

:howdy: That is what divorce and separation is all about and it is not to be made into a nice comfortable Court case.

People work out everything as it was since Adam and Eve without the Court.

You really are naive and ignorant, aren't you? We live in a civilized society now. Back when people always "worked things out", it often ended in murder or maiming. Society is far different than it once was and you need to adapt. If marriage is a process that must go through the courts, so must divorce. It's all legalities. Or do you suggest changing the marriage system as well? :crazy:


:popcorn: That "kidnapping" is what we have now, with one parent being given custody and the forcibly separated parents being forced to pay the ransom of child support or never see their kids again.

The laws are horribly ignorant and family destructive.

I'm going to quote you on this one...from your same post! ---> "That is just your own dirty hateful perspective and it is not real." Sure, there is occasion where the father may not get to see their children as much as in other cases, but you are using extremes! If the father is a good father, the court will have no choice but to throw him a bone. To not be able to see the kids at all means the father must have done something wrong. The courts will never go beyond what the mother asks for.

But lets go hypothetical again. Say there were no courts involved. The mother doesn't want her child to be near the father because he's an insane lunatic (sounding familiar?). The mother could simply take the kid and leave town and the father would never see him again. Sure, the child support wouldn't be forced, but the "good" father that wants to take care of his child and would send money over.

The courts do their best to make the best of broken relationships. Times have changed, people are insane. People want as much as they can get. The courts prevent that from happening as much as possible. But even still, if you think that the judicial system is BS on this situation then you should change it, not eliminate it. If your beliefs are that the father shouldn't be forced to pay child support if he can never see his child, then make that how the court handles it. Perhaps make the child support based on visitation and custody, or get rid of child support in itself and work the payments out another way.

It's irrational to just dissolve child support and custody battles from the legal system. It wouldn't work. It would end up in chaos and children everywhere would be hating the ignorant moron (you) that made it happen. Lucky for them, I doubt you'll ever have that chance.

Because it is socially and morally and ethically and spiritually WRONG to pay a thief. so, the ex-wife was a thief? or was it your child that was the thief?


It is wrong to even pay a thief a small amount.

Of course child support is collected under brute force so it is not a voluntary payment and that it a robbery and not truly "giving" to the thieves.

What if they put a tax on you that would have been directly turned over to your ex, would it be ok then?

The parents that do pay are being robbed. The parents that do pay are taking care of reponsibility, and if they pay then that money never goes throught the government.

No child is going without, and that entire scenario is just ONLY in your twisted perspective.

but children do go without. and any money that they might get comes from taxes, and that means that you are asking people to cover your debts.

you are no better than what you claim the government to be.

:howdy: The parents run from the horrible law and not from their children.

No. That's not it at all. Do not dare presume to tell me what's going on when I have full knowledge of the situations involved and know well the people involved.

And leaving the children with Grand-parents is providing in full to the children.


Believe whatever helps you sleep at night.

The reality is that it's not providing anything. It's called dumping your responsibilities on an innocent bystander. They don't provide ####, but heartache for that kid.

And leaving the children with Grand-parents is providing in full to the children.What does the parent provide, in full when the grandparents actually do the providing?

What does the parent provide, in full when the grandparents actually do the providing?
The ride over to the grandparents. well, most the time. sometimes they make the kid walk.

so, the ex-wife was a thief? or was it your child that was the thief?
Good point. The money is going directly to the child, which is what a responsible father should be doing anyway. How is that theft if, as JPC says, the father should be responsible for his children?


What if they put a tax on you that would have been directly turned over to your ex, would it be ok then?
No, because then it would be 1 person paying instead of the collective group. If taxes were increased evenly for EVERYONE to pay off the few mothers who needed child support, THEN it would be acceptable.

The parents that do pay are taking care of reponsibility, and if they pay then that money never goes throught the government.
It seems futile explaining this to an idiot. The legal system is only for problematic cases where people don't agree like adults. So basically, when his ideal world fails, that's when you need the legal system. Yet he wants everyone to live in his ideal world. Figures.


but children do go without. and any money that they might get comes from taxes, and that means that you are asking people to cover your debts.
Yep. Why should the father be responsible for his child if he's a deadbeat loser without a job that does drugs and isn't allowed to have custody because people fear for the child's safety and well-being?

you are no better than what you claim the government to be.
DING DING DING!!!

:buddies:

He JPLooney, I am tired of reading the rehash of your retarded child support stance for the 5,000th time. Could you move along and rail about the "Firebox Trailers" for a couple days for a change of pace?

JPC -- a couple comments about your website. First, you should have someone proof-read it since there are grammar errors...if you want anyone to take you seriously, you should fix it.

A couple more comments. In the disabilities section, you should also mention your mental disabilities so people will be more fair on you. Also, if you're able to sit your ass at a desk/computer or be the Governor of the state of Maryland then there is NO reason why you can't do another job. Instead, you're taking up taxpayer money (aka money from "the group) because you're too lazy to find a job that doesn't require physical labor. That's pathetic.

So when you were doing all that running from the horrible law,
:popcorn: I must admit that I did run from my ex-wife and my situation, but I did not run from the law.

And I am usually talking about about all broken families instead of referring to my own particulars.

Even when I spray painted the Courthouse with "Child Support Thieves" then I still waited for the police at the scene with my spray can.

And I went to Court when ordered and usually pleaded guilty and I never ran from the law.

Of course I understand why other parents might and I do sympathize for them.

did you at least call your son or maybe send him some money?
:popcorn: I tried calling him at first but there were complications.

And no need to send him any money as he had all he needed.


I'm sure you didn't, you are so full of BS, you were running from your son but of course you're going to say you were running from the law, making a statement, but the only person that your statement affected was your son.
:popcorn: You say all that based on absolutely nothing.

You are a slanderer.


You're such a loser.
:bigwhoop: I have lost a lot and I still suffer from many of my losses.

In fact I figure that people speak as you do because they have lived so easy and comfortably that they just do not know what true living really includes.



:drummer:

No, it's not dirty and hateful! It's REALITY! I know so many times where this has happened and if not for the woman taking the guy to court, he would have had nothing to do with the baby and would not have helped the mother at all. You're naive.
:whistle: You make that claim but it is given under the present circumstances so your claim is invalid.

Take away the child support thieves and the demands of custody and we all would see a blessed improvement.


So basically what you're saying is that if it's called "child support" it's "thieving" but if the father opts to pay for his child then it's legit? Or do you advocate fathers never having to pay for their children?
:popcorn: Let the 2 parents and their extended families work it all out and the Court has no business getting involved.


If marriage is a process that must go through the courts, so must divorce. It's all legalities. Or do you suggest changing the marriage system as well?
:popcorn: Marriage was originally a religious Institution and the gov made a big mistake in taking over control of marriages, and the gov took control by granting the writ of divorce in defiance of the religious doctrines.


If the father is a good father, the court will have no choice but to throw him a bone. To not be able to see the kids at all means the father must have done something wrong. The courts will never go beyond what the mother asks for.
:whistle: Throw the father a "bone" and Courts do as the mother ask.

But I am offering to both of the parents a way to go back to respectful relationships.



But lets go hypothetical again. Say there were no courts involved. The mother doesn't want her child to be near the father because he's an insane lunatic (sounding familiar?).
:popcorn: The Woman consented to have a baby by the father so calling him a "lunatic" there-after does not work with me.



The mother could simply take the kid and leave town and the father would never see him again.
:whistle: That is exactly what happens in many cases that the children are virtually kidnapped and the law support that, and the separated parent must pay while only hoping for some day when they MIGHT see their own children again.

The ignorant laws now empower that ugly hateful stuff.


Sure, the child support wouldn't be forced, but the "good" father that wants to take care of his child and would send money over.
:popcorn: Children need both of their parents and it is not to be a question about their money.



The courts do their best to make the best of broken relationships. Times have changed, people are insane. People want as much as they can get. The courts prevent that from happening as much as possible. But even still, if you think that the judicial system is BS on this situation then you should change it, not eliminate it. If your beliefs are that the father shouldn't be forced to pay child support if he can never see his child, then make that how the court handles it. Perhaps make the child support based on visitation and custody, or get rid of child support in itself and work the payments out another way.
:whistle: No, there will be no games like that from me.


It's irrational to just dissolve child support and custody battles from the legal system. It wouldn't work. It would end up in chaos and children everywhere would be hating the ignorant moron (you) that made it happen. Lucky for them, I doubt you'll ever have that chance.
:popcorn: It would feel like chaos for a while but it would settle down in a few years.

The Governor term is 4 years and it would be smoothed out by then.



:drummer:

so, the ex-wife was a thief? or was it your child that was the thief?
:howdy: You already know as I have said it a hundred times or more, but for you I am happy to post it again.

It is the State gov which is the thief, the law is the thief.

The custodial only receives the stolen child support money, and the children never get any of the loot.


What if they put a tax on you that would have been directly turned over to your ex, would it be ok then?
:popcorn: That is what the child support amounts to now which is an individual tax given to the custodial that does not need it for the stated purpose.


The parents that do pay are taking care of reponsibility, and if they pay then that money never goes throught the government.
:popcorn: The gov is still threatening and that threat is real.

Like any bandit the parents must pay or else they will be assaulted by the gov thieves.


but children do go without.
:whistle: No, no, not even one child goes without - none - not even 1, unless the custodial is neglecting or abusing the children.


and any money that they might get comes from taxes, and that means that you are asking people to cover your debts.
:popcorn: It is the custodial that ask and it is the custodial that must first qualify and it is the custodial's debt.

If they can not provide custody then give the children to the parent with the money.


you are no better than what you claim the government to be.
:whistle: As Governor then I will be the gov's representative.



:drummer:

No. That's not it at all. Do not dare presume to tell me what's going on when I have full knowledge of the situations involved and know well the people involved.
:howdy: I do dare to tell that absolutely no parent anywhere or any how leaves their own children except by the parent feeling some form of pressure to leave.

The negativity is only in the perspective and not in reality.


Believe whatever helps you sleep at night.
:popcorn: I wish I could, but what I believe does not help me to sleep.

The reality is that it's not providing anything. It's called dumping your responsibilities on an innocent bystander. They don't provide ####, but heartache for that kid.
:whistle: Remember the Waltons of Walton's Mountain which was a true story, as it was the Grandparents house and land and the son brought his wife and 7 children to live off of the Grandparents generosity and it was a blessed and wonderful family.

They did not dump on the Grandparents.



:drummer:

He JPLooney, I am tired of reading the rehash of your retarded child support stance for the 5,000th time. Could you move along and rail about the "Firebox Trailers" for a couple days for a change of pace?
:popcorn: I found out that the school kids actually like the trailers since they are small classrooms which make the class more comfortable for them.

It is building huge Schools that the kids do not like.




:drummer:

JPC -- a couple comments about your website. First, you should have someone proof-read it since there are grammar errors...if you want anyone to take you seriously, you should fix it.
:popcorn: I like using grammar errors for making emphasis.



:drummer:

:popcorn: I like using grammar errors for making emphasis.



:drummer:

Screwing up "then" and "than" is not making emphasis. Grammar errors don't make emphasis. It is showing your inherent stupidity. I hope you didn't have to pay any money to run for Governor because if you got more than just your own vote I'd be impressed. Wow I never realized how STUPID people could be that run for office. Ugh! Why don't you get a job you deadbeat.

:banghead:

:howdy: I do dare to tell that absolutely no parent anywhere or any how leaves their own children except by the parent feeling some form of pressure to leave.


And I'm telling you this is WRONG.


Remember the Waltons of Walton's Mountain which was a true story, as it was the Grandparents house and land and the son brought his wife and 7 children to live off of the Grandparents generosity and it was a blessed and wonderful family.

They did not dump on the Grandparents.



Pffft... Any similarity to the situation I was talking about and "The Walton's" is fleeting and coincidental.



It's more like Dysfunction-palooza.

And I'm telling you this is WRONG.






Pffft... Any similarity to the situation I was talking about and "The Walton's" is fleeting and coincidental.



It's more like Dysfunction-palooza.
lets look at the Walton's and make that comparison for JP since he finds it such a teaching tool

First off we are talking about life in the South Dakota Plains at the turn of the century. Not a wealth of jobs there, and the farms were large and needed many hands to operate them.
When families like the Waltons moved in to their parents farm house to raise their families, there were certain things that were expected, and given.
The son worked the farm long after the parents were too old to do it themselves anymore, the parents naturally stayed on the farm, in the home as part of the family unit.
Both parents of the children were there, involved in their lives, living with them.

There was no Dump and run involved in the Waltons.

In the examples that you represent, you are talking about the parents dumping the kids on the grandparents to be raised, while the parents run off and do whatever vile things they do now that they no longer have children.

So, where the Waltons exemplify everything good in such a situation, your lifestyle presents the opposite.

You failed in life.

Pffft... Any similarity to the situation I was talking about and "The Walton's" is fleeting and coincidental.
:popcorn: I am not trying to say anyone has such an ideal comparison to the Walton's but we can see the perverted values being pushed in today's society in comparison.

The fact that Grandparents raise Grandkids is a blessed and fortunate event and the family that has this is a blessed and fortunate family indeed.

The situation could be better with the parents but some times it is not and God bless Grandparents.

And it is not just the Walton's because President Obama says that he was raised largely by his Grandparents and it was fortunate thing for him and his sister and blessed for his Grandparents too.

It is simply absurdity to have the gov hunting down parents and forcing parents to pay for children when the children are all completely fine and already have every thing the kids need.

When the children are with the Grandparents or with other family members then the family unit is being help intact and the laws attacking the separated parents destroy the traditional way and the human ways of dealing with broken families.

Claiming the parents have done wrong when the Grandparents are providing custody is not a true claim.



:drummer:

lets look at the Walton's and make that comparison for JP since he finds it such a teaching tool

First off we are talking about life in the South Dakota Plains at the turn of the century. Not a wealth of jobs there, and the farms were large and needed many hands to operate them.
When families like the Waltons moved in to their parents farm house to raise their families, there were certain things that were expected, and given.
The son worked the farm long after the parents were too old to do it themselves anymore, the parents naturally stayed on the farm, in the home as part of the family unit.
Both parents of the children were there, involved in their lives, living with them.

There was no Dump and run involved in the Waltons.

In the examples that you represent, you are talking about the parents dumping the kids on the grandparents to be raised, while the parents run off and do whatever vile things they do now that they no longer have children.

So, where the Waltons exemplify everything good in such a situation, your lifestyle presents the opposite.

You failed in life.
:whistle: Your point is taken - but you are referring to parenting police and not supporting children.

My point is still that the children are all fine and well provided regardless of what the parents do or do not.

You are referring to what the parents do or do not because you are only talking about parenting policing and not about supporting children.

Child support is that same kind of fraud.

Child support is ONLY a type of parenting police and it has nothing to do with supporting children.

Just calling it "Child Support" is a lie because it is not about supporting children but ONLY about policing parents.

As such the child support laws break up families and promotes divorce and other destructive aspects because child support is a pack of lies.


:drummer:

It is simply absurdity to have the gov hunting down parents and forcing parents to pay for children when the children are all completely fine and already have every thing the kids need.


It doesn't matter if the kid has a billion dollars, what part of it's your child and your responsibility don't you understand?

Give it up, you'll never win, the people you would need the votes from are running from the law and probably aren't even in the state of Maryland, the custiodial parents that are in Maryland will never vote for you.

It doesn't matter if the kid has a billion dollars, what part of it's your child and your responsibility don't you understand?
:howdy: That is my point too, that Child Support is ONLY parenting police and has nothing to do with supporting children.

Look above "bcp" and others, because this woman tells us all that "Child Support" is NOT about supporting the children but ONLY about policing the parents.

Child Support is a total lie and a fraud, and it undermines the fundamental family structure of our society.


Give it up, you'll never win, the people you would need the votes from are running from the law and probably aren't even in the state of Maryland, the custiodial parents that are in Maryland will never vote for you.
:popcorn: I would honestly hope that every custodial parent would vote for me since the Child Support degrades the custodials and hurts their children and the Child support is all a lie.

The custodials need to worry about God punishing them, and electing me will put an end to their guilt and to the custodial degradations.


:drummer:

The fact that Grandparents raise Grandkids is a blessed and fortunate event and the family that has this is a blessed and fortunate family indeed.

I will debate this no further.

I have told you the facts. There is nothing fortunate or blessed about that situation.

The parents have abandoned that child, and the child is now at the age where they can see what's going on, and is developing an incredible amount of resentment toward those so-called "parents". Their neglect of the child has bred an well-deserved alienation which is very soon going to be irreversable, if it's not already. I foresee that resentment turning into outright hostility within the near future as well. Also well-deserved.


That's my last word on this subject with you. You know nothing about that situation (nor the similar ones, which I am familiar with or related to), and I have no interest in listening to you try to paint a couple of selfish apathetic deadbeats into virtuous people who have bestowed a lovely gift onto their parents and children.

It's nothing but a pile of rancid horse####.



End of discussion.

I would honestly hope that every custodial parent would vote for me since the Child Support degrades the custodials and hurts their children and the Child support is all a lie.

The custodials need to worry about God punishing them, and electing me will put an end to their guilt and to the custodial degradations

You have got to be kidding me, when you have a mother working two jobs and can't get money from the father and her child is starving, I'm sure she's going to vote for you just to save her pride and her soul.

I'm done, you're a waste. If anyone gets punished by God, it will be you for abandoning you son, make sure you take your marshmallows, I don't see it being that long for you now.

You have got to be kidding me, when you have a mother working two jobs and can't get money from the father and her child is starving, I'm sure she's going to vote for you just to save her pride and her soul.

:howdy: If you would start looking at the reality from a realistic perspective, then just in your own words above you denounce the present child support system as dysfunctional and unproductive.

We do not need better thieves, we need a new system.

The custodials and the children that could benefit from the input of the separated parents are getting trashed by the ignorant system we have now.

So long as the custodials keep hiding behind the immoral thieves then the custodials will keep being degraded accordingly - and rightly so.

Even when they do get the c/s money it is all just sin-filled stolen loot.




:drummer:

:howdy: I do dare to tell that absolutely no parent anywhere or any how leaves their own children except by the parent feeling some form of pressure to leave.
The negativity is only in the perspective and not in reality.

:popcorn: I wish I could, but what I believe does not help me to sleep.

:whistle: Remember the Waltons of Walton's Mountain which was a true story, as it was the Grandparents house and land and the son brought his wife and 7 children to live off of the Grandparents generosity and it was a blessed and wonderful family.

They did not dump on the Grandparents.



:drummer:

My ex-husband's "pressure" must have come from the woman he was committing adultry with, living with and buying new furniture for!

JPC -- a couple comments about your website. First, you should have someone proof-read it since there are grammar errors...if you want anyone to take you seriously, you should fix it.

A couple more comments. In the disabilities section, you should also mention your mental disabilities so people will be more fair on you. Also, if you're able to sit your ass at a desk/computer or be the Governor of the state of Maryland then there is NO reason why you can't do another job. Instead, you're taking up taxpayer money (aka money from "the group) because you're too lazy to find a job that doesn't require physical labor. That's pathetic.

:yeahthat: I don't agree with Beta on very much. I think we should start a campaign to have they "disabled" re-evaluated. If you can sit and type, by God, you can get a job. I'd even venture to say you would be overpaid, due the the ADA.

Leeches like you are a drain on society and I would rather see you jailed for your fraud, than see you suck my tax dollars and living free. DIAF!

Still driving your POS Bronco illegally, Gubner? :roflmao:

Edit: :yay: Blog-o-sphere makes you like like a complete idiot and a bag of chips, jackass.

by God, you can get a job.
:buddies: I am getting a job - as the next Governor for the State of Maryland.

No need to worry as it will all work out just fine. :howdy:




:drummer:

My ex-husband's "pressure" must have come from the woman he was committing adultry with, living with and buying new furniture for!
:popcorn: That might be pressure for a divorce but it has nothing to do with child support.




:drummer:

:yeahthat: I don't agree with Beta on very much. I think we should start a campaign to have they "disabled" re-evaluated. If you can sit and type, by God, you can get a job. I'd even venture to say you would be overpaid, due the the ADA.

Leeches like you are a drain on society and I would rather see you jailed for your fraud, than see you suck my tax dollars and living free. DIAF!

Still driving your POS Bronco illegally, Gubner? :roflmao:

Edit: :yay: Blog-o-sphere makes you like like a complete idiot and a bag of chips, jackass.

:yahoo:

:buddies: I am getting a job - as the next Governor for the State of Maryland.

No need to worry as it will all work out just fine. :howdy:




:drummer:

So why does your disability keep you from getting a job right now???? What's the difference between now and election time??? Are you going to all of a sudden recover from a permanent disability? You are breaking so many laws right now and committing fraud. I really wish they'd put you back in jail, make you pay back all the money you've gotten fradulently and pay your back child support that you got to slide out from under, plus you should have to pay restitution for the damage you did when you vandalized a government building. Why aren't you still in jail?

:popcorn: That might be pressure for a divorce but it has nothing to do with child support.




:drummer:


Well he wasn't paying it or participating in his kids lives until the Court made him pay and he finally decided to use his visitation (which was open and he could come to see them basically whenever) on occasion. You said the not paying or caring usually came from "pressure".

Who really cares about this guy. His family doesn't even support him.

I think we have been asking JPC the wrong question, and to be fair to him, I think it should be asked.

JPC,
I understand your resistance to send any money so long as the government was stealing from you, however, lets assume that there was no illegal and immoral government mandate that you pay $XXX.XX dollars per month for your child.
Had this been the case, when you and your wife decided it was in the best interest of all involved to split up, what percentage of your personal income would you have sent for the assistance in raising your child.

sending nothing would have not been a reason for the law to come after you, so it would have been your personal decision to make payments, if any for your family.

How would that have played out in the JPC way of life.

Who really cares about this guy. His family doesn't even support him.
I find him an interesting study for a few reasons.
one reason is to try and get into the mind of those that dont pay, even if they can afford to send something.
another is to see how he responds to being called out on his failure to pay.

as much as he pisses people off, he does open up some insight into possible reasons that the child support is so hard to collect, and by doing so, he might open up some better ideas to make sure that child support is paid.
I do not support any ideas that would involve no payment at all.

So why does your disability keep you from getting a job right now???? What's the difference between now and election time???
:whistle: Because first I have to get elected.

I can not start before I get the job.


Are you going to all of a sudden recover from a permanent disability?
:popcorn: No, my disabilities are for the rest of my life, and I will still be disabled as Governor.

And it is totally possible that I might require special provisions as required from employers under the "Americans With Disabilities Act".


You are breaking so many laws right now and committing fraud.
:diva: I really am not as I have been pocked and prodded by many Doctors and even went before an Administration Court with Judge before I was accepted as disabled under the Social Security Act.

I really am very particular about always being legal and law abiding, and really that is the reason that I take such exception to the Child Support laws because they are so extremely unjust and corrupt.


I really wish they'd put you back in jail, make you pay back all the money you've gotten fradulently and pay your back child support that you got to slide out from under, plus you should have to pay restitution for the damage you did when you vandalized a government building. Why aren't you still in jail?
:whistle: I did my jail time in full, so I paid my price in full.


:drummer:

Well he wasn't paying it or participating in his kids lives until the Court made him pay and he finally decided to use his visitation (which was open and he could come to see them basically whenever) on occasion. You said the not paying or caring usually came from "pressure".
:popcorn: It is highly likely that you giving your one side of the story is probably highly biased and incomplete.

And it is very likely that his side of the story would probably contradict your claims.

And the point of pressure is against the separated parents so they have the more relevant point of view in that equation.


:drummer:

and by doing so, he might open up some better ideas to make sure that child support is paid.
:killingme That is funny - so dream on. :killingme

Because first I have to get elected.

I can not start before I get the job.

You won't, so why can't you get a job now, governor is not the only job out there. If you can work, yet claiming to be diabled and collecting disabiltiy seems like fraud to me.

I really am not as I have been pocked and prodded by many Doctors and even went before an Administration Court with Judge before I was accepted as disabled under the Social Security Act.

That's BS if you can do the job of governor, then you can get another job, are you thinking as governor you're just not going to have to do anything?
Although, I'm sure you'd like that.

I really am very particular about always being legal and law abiding, and really that is the reason that I take such exception to the Child Support laws because they are so extremely unjust and corrupt.

You're driving your truck with historic tags like they were regular tags, that is not legal.

I did my jail time in full, so I paid my price in full.

You did not do enough time.

You have such a messed up past, there is no way anyone in their right mind will vote for you. It would make the state of Maryland look so bad. I'm sure the state has enough issues without having a governor that's an ex con and refuses to obey laws.

:killingme That is funny - so dream on. :killingme
actually, I dont have dreams of people ever learning to be responsible, so, what I do dream of is a day that the scum can be placed on a state work farm where they will supply forced labor in exchange for the payments the state will make to cover the ignored children.

I think pay back at the rate of 5 dollars an hour plus room and board and meals would be more that fair for someone that has no concern for their own children.

either that or tattoo them on the forehead and make it legal for normal citizens to taser them when ever they see them in public. That would be fun.

You won't, so why can't you get a job now, governor is not the only job out there. If you can work, yet claiming to be diabled and collecting disabiltiy seems like fraud to me.
:popcorn: The sad truth is that I am severely injured as I can walk okay but I have a hard time standing and lifting stuff in not well with me, and I even type with one finger because both of my hands are messed up. And there are other complications that I am not going to explain here.

That's BS if you can do the job of governor, then you can get another job, are you thinking as governor you're just not going to have to do anything?
Although, I'm sure you'd like that.
:whistle: I say I will have a very troubling time as Governor, and it is highly likely that the meanest thing that could happen to me is if I really do get elected because it will be very hard for me to fulfill. I surely believe I will be able to do it but it will not be an easy task for me.

You're driving your truck with historic tags like they were regular tags, that is not legal.
:bigwhoop: You are free to report me and my old truck to the authorities at any time, and do please tell them that JP and "bcp" sent you.

I have told you that I have done nothing wrong and that my truck is all done legal but if you see me as doing a crime then I want you to do right as you see fit.

You did not do enough time.
:howdy: We never know when the law might make me illegal again and then I could do some more time?

The greatest ones always break the laws and usually do go to jail at some point.


You have such a messed up past, there is no way anyone in their right mind will vote for you. It would make the state of Maryland look so bad. I'm sure the state has enough issues without having a governor that's an ex con and refuses to obey laws.
:whistle: We are to be judged by our platform and our policies and not on a candidate's past.

The Gubner we have now has a glamorized past but he has horrible policies and no real platform at all.

When I win the election there will be a lot of surprised people. :getdown:




:drummer:

:yeahthat: I don't agree with Beta on very much. I think we should start a campaign to have they "disabled" re-evaluated. If you can sit and type, by God, you can get a job. I'd even venture to say you would be overpaid, due the the ADA.

Leeches like you are a drain on society and I would rather see you jailed for your fraud, than see you suck my tax dollars and living free. DIAF!

Still driving your POS Bronco illegally, Gubner? :roflmao:

Edit: :yay: Blog-o-sphere makes you like like a complete idiot and a bag of chips, jackass.
:lol:

:buddies: I am getting a job - as the next Governor for the State of Maryland.

No need to worry as it will all work out just fine. :howdy:

Lets go hypothetical here. If you don't get a job as governor, would you get another job? If so, what would it be? Potential governors job paths are of much interest to the voters because it gives us a little insight on them.

Because first I have to get elected.

I can not start before I get the job.


:popcorn: No, my disabilities are for the rest of my life, and I will still be disabled as Governor.

And it is totally possible that I might require special provisions as required from employers under the "Americans With Disabilities Act".


:diva: I really am not as I have been pocked and prodded by many Doctors and even went before an Administration Court with Judge before I was accepted as disabled under the Social Security Act.

I really am very particular about always being legal and law abiding, and really that is the reason that I take such exception to the Child Support laws because they are so extremely unjust and corrupt.


:whistle: I did my jail time in full, so I paid my price in full.


:drummer:

So you want us to vote for a disabled guy who wants the state to spend more money on special provisions for him when the state already pays him to be unemployed. You want us to vote for a guy who has been jailed in the past and his lone campaign issue is to overturn the laws that sent him to jail? What makes your candidacy any better than a prisoner who is trying to have grand theft or murder removed from the courts, instead of child support laws?

If you don't feel like any of my questions then fine, but BCP had a valid question in post #124 that you should stop ignoring. He asked for how you would have handled your own situation if you were living in your ideal world with the courts out of the picture. Care to share?

Lets go hypothetical here. If you don't get a job as governor, would you get another job? If so, what would it be? Potential governors job paths are of much interest to the voters because it gives us a little insight on them.
:popcorn: I have no idea, because jobs are too demanding on my physical limitations.

Even as Governor I will expect to have competent secretaries all around.



So you want us to vote for a disabled guy who wants the state to spend more money on special provisions for him when the state already pays him to be unemployed. You want us to vote for a guy who has been jailed in the past and his lone campaign issue is to overturn the laws that sent him to jail?
:whistle: I would really want people to vote for me and even to vote against me, based on my platform and my political policies instead of voting just based on their view of me personally.

Might not happen but that would be my ideal.


What makes your candidacy any better than a prisoner who is trying to have grand theft or murder removed from the courts, instead of child support laws?

:howdy: Big difference, because Child Support is not really a crime at all. There are no victims and nobody is injured and no real crime.

Me spray painting the Courthouse was a crime - oh yes, but me not having the 27,000 dollars to pay the Child Support thieves is no crime at all.

The grand theft is actually done by the Child Support collections.


If you don't feel like any of my questions then fine, but BCP had a valid question in post #124 that you should stop ignoring. He asked for how you would have handled your own situation if you were living in your ideal world with the courts out of the picture. Care to share?
:popcorn: I always try to answer any sincere or legitimate questions but that post #124 was belligerent and ignorant extreme, as he ask what percentage I would pay as if parenting is based on percentages or percent of income, and parenting only applies that way under the ignorant system that we have now.

My basis principle includes stopping the degradation of parents into a calculation of money or a relationship of percentages.

So belligerent and ignorant questions are hard for me to reply to and those are the only ones I ever truly ignore.


:drummer:

well then if it was ignorant to ask about a percentage, lets try it this way.

would you have done anything different had the government not stuck their noses into your business.

:popcorn: It is highly likely that you giving your one side of the story is probably highly biased and incomplete.

And it is very likely that his side of the story would probably contradict your claims.

And the point of pressure is against the separated parents so they have the more relevant point of view in that equation.


:drummer:

Actually, after 8 years, he finally agrees with me that he acted wrongly and is now trying to spend more time with his kids which I think is great.

On another note, if by some miracle you won Governor you would lose your Disability as you cannot work that many hours or earn that much money and stay on Disability. Know it for a fact as I was on Disability for awhile when I first became diagnosed with an illness.

:popcorn: I have no idea, because jobs are too demanding on my physical limitations.

Even as Governor I will expect to have competent secretaries all around.

Um BS. You can't sit at a desk all day? You're able to sit here on the forums all day answering questions or campaigning or whatever else it is you're doing. How do you supposed you'll be able to be the Governor if there isn't any other job in existance that you can handle? That's ludicrous. NOBODY will vote for someone who thinks the only job he can possibly do is Governor. We don't want to put some unemployed hobo as the Governor. Get a job, prove to us you can actually put in a good day of work on a consistent basis, and maybe you'd get more consideration. Until then you're just a jokester trying to run for office that nobody is going to take seriously.


:whistle: I would really want people to vote for me and even to vote against me, based on my platform and my political policies instead of voting just based on their view of me personally.

Might not happen but that would be my ideal.

Everything you've done in your past is part of who you are. It ALL counts in an election. Policy is only one portion of it. But your website basically lists nothing but your stance on child support. You're a one trick pony. Nobody votes for a 1 trick pony. Put up information about all of the current issues and list your stances if you want to be a legitimate candidate.



:howdy: Big difference, because Child Support is not really a crime at all. There are no victims and nobody is injured and no real crime.

Me spray painting the Courthouse was a crime - oh yes, but me not having the 27,000 dollars to pay the Child Support thieves is no crime at all.

The grand theft is actually done by the Child Support collections.

Did you go to jail? Then you committed a crime. 27,000 dollars of child support probably would have done a great deal for your child. And the victim is your child. You sound like a great father...not...


:popcorn: I always try to answer any sincere or legitimate questions but that post #124 was belligerent and ignorant extreme, as he ask what percentage I would pay as if parenting is based on percentages or percent of income, and parenting only applies that way under the ignorant system that we have now.

My basis principle includes stopping the degradation of parents into a calculation of money or a relationship of percentages.

So belligerent and ignorant questions are hard for me to reply to and those are the only ones I ever truly ignore.


:drummer:
It wasn't a belligerent question. Maybe he worded it incorrectly, but the question was simple...how would you have handled the situation if the courts weren't involved? How would you have worked everything out with your child's mother in terms of custody, payments, and everything in between? It's a simple question. You are saying that everyone needs to be responsible and handle it outside of the courts, but have never said how it should be handled outside of the courts or how you would have handled it outside of the courts.

Actually, after 8 years, he finally agrees with me that he acted wrongly and is now trying to spend more time with his kids which I think is great.

On another note, if by some miracle you won Governor you would lose your Disability as you cannot work that many hours or earn that much money and stay on Disability. Know it for a fact as I was on Disability for awhile when I first became diagnosed with an illness.

He'd lose disability payment, but he'd have a job that paid more anyway. I doubt he would lose the advantages for someone that is physically disabled and needs help in performing their job.

well then if it was ignorant to ask about a percentage, lets try it this way.

would you have done anything different had the government not stuck their noses into your business.
:doh: Dear bcp,

my case is long years closed and over so I am not going to play any guessing game with your irrelevant scenarios.

But in my best of efforts to answer your question, I would say that when as Governor and when I take the Child Support out of the divorce equations then there would indeed be a big difference and a BIG improvement too.


:drummer:

:doh: Dear bcp,

my case is long years closed and over so I am not going to play any guessing game with your irrelevant scenarios.

But in my best of efforts to answer your question, I would say that when as Governor and when I take the Child Support out of the divorce equations then there would indeed be a big difference and a BIG improvement too.


:drummer:
heres the problem, even though your pitiful case may be long closed, you are asking to be given a position that would or, could affect the outcome of cases of others, not yet closed.
So, to make an informed decision, the voters must know what you would do should you find yourself in that same situation, or more to the point, what you would expect others to do.

Its very simple, I have no idea why you cant ever answer a question honestly.

Actually, after 8 years, he finally agrees with me that he acted wrongly and is now trying to spend more time with his kids which I think is great.
:howdy: Well I know I am asking for your anger here and I am only referring to the words in your post and nothing else, so you put it out here and I am just trying to explain a point and not to affront your self personally.

So if he "finally agrees" than that means you were holding the disagreement against him for those 8 long years, and it is now that he bows to your side because that is the way he gets to see his own kids.

You say it is great, but the above confession says that you see it as great because he finally bowed to you and so now you are permitting him to see his own children as you rub your victory in the father's face.

And your hard feelings are your own choice but I strongly object to the State law empowering in such immoral actions.


On another note, if by some miracle you won Governor you would lose your Disability as you cannot work that many hours or earn that much money and stay on Disability. Know it for a fact as I was on Disability for awhile when I first became diagnosed with an illness.
:popcorn: I would lose my benefits but I would still have my disabilities.

If a disabled blind person gets a job then they are still blind.

And with the Governor's pay-check then I would no longer need and Disability benefits.


:drummer:

So, to make an informed decision, the voters must know what you would do should you find yourself in that same situation, or more to the point, what you would expect others to do.
:popcorn: It was a mistake for the Courts to make the absolute demands like 25% of income or just visit 2 weekends per month and intrusive details like those because things are never to be so cut and dry perfect.

Letting the parents raise their own kids means we do not put outside demands on the family unit.

We already have laws on abuse and neglect and going to school but we do not need nit-picking laws that demand specific payments or child raising procedures.


Its very simple, I have no idea why you cant ever answer a question honestly.
:popcorn: Because the question itself is confused and incompetent.



:drummer:

:popcorn: It was a mistake for the Courts to make the absolute demands like 25% of income or just visit 2 weekends per month and intrusive details like those because things are never to be so cut and dry perfect.

Letting the parents raise their own kids means we do not put outside demands on the family unit.

We already have laws on abuse and neglect and going to school but we do not need nit-picking laws that demand specific payments or child raising procedures.

You keep forgetting a simple concept. If the courts are making it so "cut and dry" then the mother probably doesn't want to have the father have any more contact/custody than he's getting. What if the mother doesn't want the father to have any contact with his child whatsoever, even if he's a great father that did nothing wrong? The court may be forcing the mother to allow the father to have some visitation or custody rights. Are you OK with mothers taking children away from the fathers because that's what the mother wants? All she has to do is take the kid for a car ride and they may never be heard from again if there's no legal agreement. Or is that ok since at least the father won't be thieved of child support?


:popcorn: Because the question itself is confused and incompetent.

:drummer:
No, it's just confusing to the incompetent.

You keep forgetting a simple concept. If the courts are making it so "cut and dry" then the mother probably doesn't want to have the father have any more contact/custody than he's getting. What if the mother doesn't want the father to have any contact with his child whatsoever, even if he's a great father that did nothing wrong? The court may be forcing the mother to allow the father to have some visitation or custody rights. Are you OK with mothers taking children away from the fathers because that's what the mother wants? All she has to do is take the kid for a car ride and they may never be heard from again if there's no legal agreement. Or is that ok since at least the father won't be thieved of child support?
:howdy: That is what we have now.

Of course it includes Men and fathers as the selfish and ignorant custodials too, but it works in a hateful way no matter who gets custody and which ever one gets visitations or forced to pay the child support.

There is no benefit in blaming either parent, but the law getting involved has made the complications far worse.


:drummer:

You are free to report me and my old truck to the authorities at any time, and do please tell them that JP and "bcp" sent you.

I have told you that I have done nothing wrong and that my truck is all done legal but if you see me as doing a crime then I want you to do right as you see fit.

First of all is it true that you have historic tags on your truck? Do you drive your truck daily?

:howdy: Well I know I am asking for your anger here and I am only referring to the words in your post and nothing else, so you put it out here and I am just trying to explain a point and not to affront your self personally.

So if he "finally agrees" than that means you were holding the disagreement against him for those 8 long years, and it is now that he bows to your side because that is the way he gets to see his own kids.

You say it is great, but the above confession says that you see it as great because he finally bowed to you and so now you are permitting him to see his own children as you rub your victory in the father's face.

And your hard feelings are your own choice but I strongly object to the State law empowering in such immoral actions.


:popcorn: I would lose my benefits but I would still have my disabilities.

If a disabled blind person gets a job then they are still blind.

And with the Governor's pay-check then I would no longer need and Disability benefits.


:drummer:

Our kids are all grown. The youngest is 21 and he always had open visitation. He just realized that by trying to hurt me he was actually punishing his kids as well. I don't expect you to understand.

First of all is it true that you have historic tags on your truck? Do you drive your truck daily?
:doh: Go climd a tree - you silly dingbat.




:deadhorse

:doh: Go climd a tree - you silly dingbat.




:deadhorse

JP, you're stooping to my level of calling someone names, funny how when you don't want to answer a question you start calling names, something you are totally against. And the beating of the dead horse, isn't that what you're doing with your ludicrous idea of getting rid of child support? Wow, I think I struck a nerve.

JP, you're stooping to my level of calling someone names, funny how when you don't want to answer a question you start calling names, something you are totally against. And the beating of the dead horse, isn't that what you're doing with your ludicrous idea of getting rid of child support? Wow, I think I struck a nerve.
I think you are wrong. JP wont stoop to name calling. Its only the caller acting immature as a way of controlling the other people.

isnt this what your lying backside claimed somewhere else JPC?

:) I do know that a lot of people (especially parents) are really hurt by that kind of name-calling, but I am one that sees the name-calling for what it is, that it is the caller acting immature as a way of controlling the other people and it has no power over me.
When the house is built on sand like name-calling is, then it will fall and I will help to make it fall.
So I suggest you grow-up and face the new reality.

:rwb:

JP, you're stooping to my level of calling someone names, funny how when you don't want to answer a question you start calling names, something you are totally against. And the beating of the dead horse, isn't that what you're doing with your ludicrous idea of getting rid of child support? Wow, I think I struck a nerve.
:popcorn: It is true that I broke down and I called names on you.

So I do apologize and I confess that you did hit my nerve and did stress-me-out on that one.



:drummer:

:popcorn: It is true that I broke down and I called names on you.

So I do apologize and I confess that you did hit my nerve and did stress-me-out on that one.



:drummer:
don't get stressed about her talking about your tag use.
its already been taken care of.

its only a matter of time now before a pattern of use has been established over a given period before the tags are snatched and the fines implemented,, of course, now you have a chance of correcting the tags before that happens.

don't get stressed about her talking about your tag use.
its already been taken care of.

its only a matter of time now before a pattern of use has been established over a given period before the tags are snatched and the fines implemented,, of course, now you have a chance of correcting the tags before that happens.
:evil: Sorry, it was you that I meant to call the silly dingbat.

So many mistakes.



:drummer:

:doh: Go climd a tree - you silly dingbat.




:deadhorse

:popcorn: It is true that I broke down and I called names on you.

So I do apologize and I confess that you did hit my nerve and did stress-me-out on that one.



:drummer:

you apologized and you did at one point say that you liked answering questions, but I guess you don't like my questions. Guess I won't get an answer which to me says enough.

:evil: Sorry, it was you that I meant to call the silly dingbat.

So many mistakes.



:drummer:
Guess those mistakes started when you decided your best path in life was to abandon your child and leave him to grow up to a life of crime.

you apologized and you did at one point say that you liked answering questions, but I guess you don't like my questions. Guess I won't get an answer which to me says enough.
:popcorn: An apology does have its limitations.

My point aside from my name-calling was and is that my truck is not any election subject in my perspective, and if you think there is anything illegal then you are free to report me to the police or the FBI, CIA, IRS or report me to anyone anywhere and anytime.

I told you it was legal and that is that - so deal with it.


:drummer:

:howdy: That is what we have now.

Of course it includes Men and fathers as the selfish and ignorant custodials too, but it works in a hateful way no matter who gets custody and which ever one gets visitations or forced to pay the child support.

There is no benefit in blaming either parent, but the law getting involved has made the complications far worse.


:drummer:

The system may not have worked out for you because of your own inadequacies, but I've seen the system work very well many times in the past. You are delusional and are fighting something based on your bad experience and not looking at it from a broader view. It would not be for the greater good at all.

Oh and FYI, I don't think you'd actually be able to make this change as governor. So pretty much your one point of campaign is on something that you can't change anyway. You have nothing else for us to even consider when voting for you. That makes you a candidate with no agenda whatsoever. Sounds fitting considering you're a deadbeat father that doesn't work.

:popcorn: An apology does have its limitations.

My point aside from my name-calling was and is that my truck is not any election subject in my perspective, and if you think there is anything illegal then you are free to report me to the police or the FBI, CIA, IRS or report me to anyone anywhere and anytime.

I told you it was legal and that is that - so deal with it.


:drummer:

(If it has historic tags) I'm sure it is legal on the truck, but if you're driving it like you have regular tags, then what you're doing is illegal. It just really irritates me that you think you're above the law becasue you think you're running for governor.

:popcorn: An apology does have its limitations.

My point aside from my name-calling was and is that my truck is not any election subject in my perspective, and if you think there is anything illegal then you are free to report me to the police or the FBI, CIA, IRS or report me to anyone anywhere and anytime.

I told you it was legal and that is that - so deal with it.


:drummer:

i'll do that in 24 hours. you may wanna get away while you still can. :yay:

The system may not have worked out for you because of your own inadequacies, but I've seen the system work very well many times in the past. You are delusional and are fighting something based on your bad experience and not looking at it from a broader view. It would not be for the greater good at all.
:howdy: The system does work in many cases but it works by using immoral tactics including brute force.

Any gov that uses unjust violence against innocent citizens can work well for many years and some tyrant gov's have lasted for centuries.

Any custodial given money that was stolen from their children's parents can still make the money work and even prosper on stolen money.

It does work - except that it is sinful, ignorant, immoral, and God will punish them accordingly.

And your idea of it "working" is that it worked in getting a divorce, and it worked in taking the children from one of the children's parents, and it worked in breaking up the family unit.

My point is that it does NOT work in defending the marriage, and does not work in protecting the family unit, and it does not work for anything that could be called productive or improvement - nothing of value comes from that kind of work.


Oh and FYI, I don't think you'd actually be able to make this change as governor. So pretty much your one point of campaign is on something that you can't change anyway. You have nothing else for us to even consider when voting for you. That makes you a candidate with no agenda whatsoever. Sounds fitting considering you're a deadbeat father that doesn't work.
:popcorn: Mine is a perfect method, because I win even if I lose.



:drummer:

(If it has historic tags) I'm sure it is legal on the truck, but if you're driving it like you have regular tags, then what you're doing is illegal. It just really irritates me that you think you're above the law becasue you think you're running for governor.

:howdy: I will say it again just for you.

I do everything legally as I am very strict about being legal and doing things right.

If my truck was lacking then I would fix it, and it some thing is required of me then I satisfy it, so I am not misusing my truck.

I most certainly in no way see myself as above any law.

And even the spray painting of the Courthouse - the law does not actually say that I may not destroy the property - no, the law says that if I destroy property (just spray paint) then I must go to jail as the punishment and so I did go to jail and fulfilled the law even when I broke the law.

The reason that I fight against Child Support is because it is an evil and destructive set of laws and I say that because I care about the law.

If I did not respect law and order and care about laws then I would have no real reason to fight the child support laws.

So if you look honestly at me then you could see that I have nothing to gain in my campaign except the idealistic quest of bringing justice to the law.


:drummer:

:howdy: I will say it again just for you.

I do everything legally as I am very strict about being legal and doing things right.

If my truck was lacking then I would fix it, and it some thing is required of me then I satisfy it, so I am not misusing my truck.

I most certainly in no way see myself as above any law.

And even the spray painting of the Courthouse - the law does not actually say that I may not destroy the property - no, the law says that if I destroy property (just spray paint) then I must go to jail as the punishment and so I did go to jail and fulfilled the law even when I broke the law.

The reason that I fight against Child Support is because it is an evil and destructive set of laws and I say that because I care about the law.

If I did not respect law and order and care about laws then I would have no real reason to fight the child support laws.

So if you look honestly at me then you could see that I have nothing to gain in my campaign except the idealistic quest of bringing justice to the law.


:drummer:

Why won't you say whether the tags are regular or historic? The only reason you don't think it's illegal is because you haven't gotten caught yet. You'll answer every question thrown at you, but you won't answer the question of whether your tags are historic or regular tags, why does this question bother you so bad? And don't say it's because it has nothing to do with becoming governor, it does because if you are driving a vehicle with historic tags on a regular basis, then you are breaking the law. Is that the next thing you're going to change?

: The reason that I fight against Child Support is because it is an evil and destructive set of laws and I say that because I care about the law.

If I did not respect law and order and care about laws then I would have no real reason to fight the child support laws.


In all seriousness, JPC... if you were providing for your child to begin with on your own, without having to be forced to take part in the cost of his welfare, then your ex would have had no reason to file for child support against you... so what went wrong?

In all seriousness, JPC... if you were providing for your child to begin with on your own, without having to be forced to take part in the cost of his welfare, then your ex would have had no reason to file for child support against you... so what went wrong?
:popcorn: That is not the true equation as the law is.

The entire process is based on the parents separating or getting a divorce and so the law is there from the very beginning and there is no making any arrangements outside of the law.

So the gov threats and gov force is always there in the way so no couple can get around the law that attacks the parents.

And in my own pitiful case long years ago, I did start out by paying all the bills and as such it only amounted to holding down a family unit while having a second home where I was living which was not only unsustainable but when one leaves the home and still pays the bills then it is not really a divorce at all.

The very concept of "DIVORCE" is an unfriendly action which denotes hostilities and it is not meant to be easy or comfortable.

The law making separation and divorce into some easy and comfortable transaction is a destructive thing for the law to do, because it is making the destruction of the families into an easier and more comfortable thing to do which undermines the foundation of society.


:drummer:

I have just come to the conclusion that JPC has no way to determine right from wrong.
It shows in his whole life.

very sad for those that know him personally.

I have just come to the conclusion that JPC has no way to determine right from wrong.
It shows in his whole life.

very sad for those that know him personally.

I think he has me on ignore. Won't answer the question about his license plates, wonder if they are handicap plates also, can you get historic handicap plates? This seems to be a very touchy subject with him I think because he knows he's using the plates improperly and maybe getting pulled over right now. :killingme

I think he has me on ignore. Won't answer the question about his license plates, wonder if they are handicap plates also, can you get historic handicap plates? This seems to be a very touchy subject with him I think because he knows he's using the plates improperly and maybe getting pulled over right now. :killingmeNotice that he never suggests he's following the law with regards to his plates/truck. His only argument/answer is for you to turn him in.

Either he realizes that it's not considered an offense worthy of the police to actually enforce, or he actively wishes to be punished. My vote is the latter. He sought being punished for his destruction of government property. He seeks the abuse he receives here. Clearly, he has some sort of sick, twisted personality that gets off on abuse and humiliation.

Why else would he be what he is?

I think he has me on ignore. Won't answer the question about his license plates, wonder if they are handicap plates also, can you get historic handicap plates? This seems to be a very touchy subject with him I think because he knows he's using the plates improperly and maybe getting pulled over right now.
:howdy: I absolutely never ever put anyone on "ignore" and I have never ever done that before and I would never ever do it in the future.

I do not believe in putting anyone on ignore and I do not really ignore anyone as I have read every posting in the threads that I post in, and I see and read all your postings and you simply leave me speechless here and I see no way for me to reply to your questions.

I have already answered you and you do not accept what I said and I am not going to try to convince you or anyone else because it is your own deficiency and I have my own limitation in such an exchange.

As to the MVA it does not give out Historic / Handicap license plates as we can only get one or the other plate but not both combined. So I have the Historic plates and the type of "Handicap" sign that hangs on my truck mirror.



:drummer:

I have just come to the conclusion that JPC has no way to determine right from wrong.
:buddies: Deciding right from wrong is best done based on long established principles and doctrine.

You (and others) declare Child Support to be "right" just because it is said to be supporting "children" in total disregard of the reality that it is all a pack of lies and child support helps no one.

When I declare child support to be wrong then I do not even state any of my own reasoning as I say child support is wrong because of the long established principle and doctrine of "Thou shalt not steal."

See that is not any idea of my own as I am not deciding what is right or wrong but I am telling that stealing is wrong and child support is just legalized stealing and the doctrine of "Thou shalt not steal" is a universal principle that stretches throughout all of human history and it is a doctrine of every human culture throughout the entire world.

Child support is stealing and the State gov is a thief and any person receiving the child support is living on stolen money.

So it is God that has already determined right from wrong and not JP.



:drummer:

As to the MVA it does not give out Historic / Handicap license plates as we can only get one or the other plate but not both combined. So I have the Historic plates and the type of "Handicap" sign that hangs on my truck mirror.

Historic plates are for vehicles that are at least 20 years old that haven't undergone major alterations from their original design. Additionally, the vehicle must only be used for activities such as antique exhibitions and parades, and not for daily driving. These plates cost $51.

Okay, so you do have the historic plates and I'll bet you were driving that truck today and not to any parade or car show, so that means you're using your vehicle illegally, whether you got caught or not, you are still breaking the law (all just to save a few bucks on insurance and tags, you're so cheap)this is not something the wannabe governor of Maryland should be doing.

Okay, so you do have the historic plates and I'll bet you were driving that truck today and not to any parade or car show, so that means you're using your vehicle illegally, whether you got caught or not, you are still breaking the law (all just to save a few bucks on insurance and tags, you're so cheap)this is not something the wannabe governor of Maryland should be doing.
:howdy: Dream on.

And a cheap Governor seems like an improvement over the high living representatives we usually get.

It is true that I will be as cheap a Governor as I am cheap in my own businesses.


:drummer:

:howdy: Dream on.

And a cheap Governor seems like an improvement over the high living representatives we usually get.

It is true that I will be as cheap a Governor as I am cheap in my own businesses.


:drummer:

I'd rather have a law abiding governor that takes care of his responsibilities, not one that breaks laws to save a buck.

You're against stealing, but in reality, you steal every time you drive that truck, you stole money from the MVA that you should have paid for regular tags and your insurance company for insurance of a regular vehicle and not a historic vehicle. Because you're driving the truck like his has regular tags and insurance. Who's the theif now JP?

I'd rather have a law abiding governor that takes care of his responsibilities, not one that breaks laws to save a buck.
:howdy: If you vote for the creep that is there now then you deserve what you get.

You're against stealing, but in reality, you steal every time you drive that truck, you stole money from the MVA that you should have paid for regular tags and your insurance company for insurance of a regular vehicle and not a historic vehicle. Because you're driving the truck like his has regular tags and insurance. Who's the theif now JP?
:popcorn: I still pay full regular insurance as I do not get any Insurance discount.

They tell me that if I get another vehicle then I can get the truck insured with full coverage for as low as $100 per year, but I can not get that now as is because I got rid of my car.



:drummer:

:howdy: If you vote for the creep that is there now then you deserve what you get.





I already told you, I don't live in Maryland.

I already told you, I don't live in Maryland.
:buddies: Well you do not live in my truck either.

When I become Governor then I will have a Limousine with Chauffeur too.




:drummer:

Well you do not live in my truck either.
So, the question remains.... Do you or do you not drive the truck on a close to daily basis, or only as prescribed by law?

So, the question remains.... Do you or do you not drive the truck on a close to daily basis, or only as prescribed by law?
:howdy: Dear T_p, I am surprised that you would get drawn into this foolish exchange but you are still always welcome with me.

So when I get the Governor's Limo then I figure I will cruise around a lot of days.

As to my own private vehicle than I drive it every day if I want to and do not drive it at all when I do not want too.


:killingme


:drummer:

As to my own private vehicle than I drive it every day if I want to and do not drive it at all when I do not want too.Always good of you to admit being entirely disrespectful of the law... :cheers: