Parenting Police.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Just like if one quits their job then the standard of living goes down. But then what about the kids? They go up or down with the parents.

Realize, part of what we're all trying to teach you here is included in your thoughts here. You say if a parent quits a job, they're standard of living goes down. We're saying "Yep, and if the parent - separated, not separated, whatever - is working, the standard of living for the child should be supported by that". Because, see, you're still a parent, even if you don't live with the child. You can still talk with the child daily, you can still see the child often enough to be a part of their lives and upbringing, you can still work with your co-parent on every decision associated with how that child is brought up... You're still a parent, and so your level of income, your contribution to their standard of living still exists.

The parents do make the decisions that directly affect the kids so when the parents do get separated then the kids get it too.

This is absurd! Kids are not married to their parents. There's no "divorce decree" or "separation agreement" to separate parents from their children. This is so wrong it's painful to read. You are not separated from your kids because you end your legal connection to their other parent.

Claiming the parents can separate and the family can maintain the same standard is absurd and unrealistic.

This, I will agree with you on. And, because it is true, it puts the onus on the parents to limit the adverse effects of their decisions from hurting their kids. You have to still talk nicely (in front of the child) to the man/woman whom you probably now hate. You have to think clearly about what that person has to say about your child. You have to - well, you have to be an adult, a parent; even if it hurts to do so.

Plus the divorces and the separations are not meant to be easy. The separations are a type of wrong doing and that is why it does hurt and it causes negative consiquences. If we want the two parents to raise and support the children then the parents and the family unit must stay together.

But, they don't. Because parents don't marry their children, the hurt needs to be confined to the parents as much as possible. The kids didn't get married, and didn't get divorced, the parents did. Someone has to take the consequences of the parents' actions, and it's the parents, not the kids, that need those adverse consequences.

The children really do not belong with "step-parents" as that is not natural.

As a step-parent, the husband of a step-parent, and the son raised in part by a step-parent, I will tell you part of what you say is true. That part, it's not natural. However, all all three of those people wrapped into one, I can tell you in some instances, it's better than being with the parent. Take a look at your son, for example. He could have been not raised by you, or raised by a step-dad. What do you think was better for him in the long run? You chose to not be there for him, so a surrogate had to be there for him, providing material things, love, emotional support, teaching life lessons, etc.

And a separated parent can not be a functioning parent or a real part of the family unit when they live in a separate house.

It's sad you think this is true. Separated parents all over this county, state, and country are daily functioning parents, real parts of the family, every minute of every day. Dad's that pick the kids up from mom's house to take them to school. Both parents going to the class play or concert. Daily phone conversations with the ones who don't live there. Phone or face-to-face converstations between parents about what is going on in their kids lives with decisions being made about how to deal with life situations. It's called being a parent. Those soldiers you malign for being in a different country can e-mail, talk by phone, write letters.... be a daily part of their kids' lives. And, they do. Certainly a person can live in the same county and be just as involved as someone in Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. You're proven wrong here by millions of people daily, Jimmy. It's sad, really sad for you you don't know that.

Child support needs to be fought, it needs to be stopped.

When one is in the right then it is better to lose in agony rather then to win through dishonorable methods,

but when one is in the wrong, then to lose is the agony, and to win by dishonorable methods is their only option.

The child support system disgraces everyone concerned.

I'm not following this.... Are you saying that you're in the wrong, so that's why you dishonorably "deserted" your family? That you know you're wrong, so you dishonorably defaced government property? That you know you're wrong, so you left your family to go hungry and "figure it out for themselves" instead of being a man and providing for your child?

Which of these dishonorable methods you chose are you referring to?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by hvp05

Since you need me to present a tidy, concise question:

a) Why do you demonize the government as an "evil" entity, including all laws (calling for anarchy) but then also claim that the same government and its laws should support "deserted" children?

Because I do accept that some gov is necessary in our world today. Even the Kingdom of God is a form of gov. So I just object to the wrongful parts of gov like the killing of babies and a criminal President and unjust child support and abusive greed growth and things like that, and at the same time I agree with the positive aspects of gov like police and lawful military defense and welfare for the poor and things like that.

So a gov can be evil and righteous at the same time.

Plus I am a candidate for the U.S. Congress so I am attempting to join the gov.

Originally Posted by hvp05

b) Why should the government (see also, taxpayers) be forced to support anyone's child long-term, instead of the parents (both) doing it themselves?

When parents can do it then that is fine but we have and we need the welfare system to provide for any family in need. We are a rich State and a rich Country and we must aid the families in need - and when the parents can not do it then that family is in need. It misses the whole point when we or the gov puts blame onto the parents and I do not stoop low like that.

Originally Posted by hvp05

c) Similar to (a), why do you want the government to give people jobs, but when the government attempts to aid people in educating themselves and becoming better all-around members of society you claim that is wrong?

I really do not like the gov giving citizens a job as that is close to be Communistic and has similarities to slavery, but some other people like that and it is done in some cases, so just because I do not like it then that does not mean I am directly against it. I do try to be tolerant of the weaknesses of others in those cases.

The same applies to gov giving "education" to citizens, in that is not my idea of a healthy exchange but for now we must tolerate such an infraction.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

When parents can do it then that is fine but we have and we need the welfare system to provide for any family in need. We are a rich State and a rich Country and we must aid the families in need - and when the parents can not do it then that family is in need. It misses the whole point when we or the gov puts blame onto the parents and I do not stoop low like that.

We finally agree! It's up to both parents, always!!!

Ladies and Gentleman, Jimmy has finally seen the light!!!!!!

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Realize, part of what we're all trying to teach you here is included in your thoughts here. You say if a parent quits a job, they're standard of living goes down. We're saying "Yep, and if the parent - separated, not separated, whatever - is working, the standard of living for the child should be supported by that". Because, see, you're still a parent, even if you don't live with the child. You can still talk with the child daily, you can still see the child often enough to be a part of their lives and upbringing, you can still work with your co-parent on every decision associated with how that child is brought up... You're still a parent, and so your level of income, your contribution to their standard of living still exists.This is absurd! Kids are not married to their parents. There's no "divorce decree" or "separation agreement" to separate parents from their children. This is so wrong it's painful to read. You are not separated from your kids because you end your legal connection to their other parent.This, I will agree with you on. And, because it is true, it puts the onus on the parents to limit the adverse effects of their decisions from hurting their kids. You have to still talk nicely (in front of the child) to the man/woman whom you probably now hate. You have to think clearly about what that person has to say about your child. You have to - well, you have to be an adult, a parent; even if it hurts to do so.But, they don't. Because parents don't marry their children, the hurt needs to be confined to the parents as much as possible. The kids didn't get married, and didn't get divorced, the parents did. Someone has to take the consequences of the parents' actions, and it's the parents, not the kids, that need those adverse consequences.As a step-parent, the husband of a step-parent, and the son raised in part by a step-parent, I will tell you part of what you say is true. That part, it's not natural. However, all all three of those people wrapped into one, I can tell you in some instances, it's better than being with the parent. Take a look at your son, for example. He could have been not raised by you, or raised by a step-dad. What do you think was better for him in the long run? You chose to not be there for him, so a surrogate had to be there for him, providing material things, love, emotional support, teaching life lessons, etc.It's sad you think this is true. Separated parents all over this county, state, and country are daily functioning parents, real parts of the family, every minute of every day. Dad's that pick the kids up from mom's house to take them to school. Both parents going to the class play or concert. Daily phone conversations with the ones who don't live there. Phone or face-to-face converstations between parents about what is going on in their kids lives with decisions being made about how to deal with life situations. It's called being a parent. Those soldiers you malign for being in a different country can e-mail, talk by phone, write letters.... be a daily part of their kids' lives. And, they do. Certainly a person can live in the same county and be just as involved as someone in Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. You're proven wrong here by millions of people daily, Jimmy. It's sad, really sad for you you don't know that.

I do not like to just comment on such statements but I do understand this point of yours and of the gov and I say that it must be fought, and it is such self righteous decrees that make the fight more urgent and more necessary.

So I am saying that I do understand your position and I can only state that position must be destroyed.

Originally Posted by This_person

I'm not following this.... Are you saying that you're in the wrong, so that's why you dishonorably "deserted" your family? That you know you're wrong, so you dishonorably defaced government property? That you know you're wrong, so you left your family to go hungry and "figure it out for themselves" instead of being a man and providing for your child?

Which of these dishonorable methods you chose are you referring to?

I stand by everything that I posted and everything that I wrote as my words are accurate and true for my comments.

While TP is just preaching more slander here.

[missperky (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It is because the difference is in the parents being together or not together.

That is the big difference big time.

Just like if one quits their job then the standard of living goes down.

But then what about the kids? They go up or down with the parents.

The parents do make the decisions that directly affect the kids so when the parents do get separated then the kids get it too.

Claiming the parents can separate and the family can maintain the same standard is absurd and unrealistic.

It is a spoiled brat claim made by adults.

Plus the divorces and the separations are not meant to be easy. The separations are a type of wrong doing and that is why it does hurt and it causes negative consiquences.

If we want the two parents to raise and support the children then the parents and the family unit must stay together.

The children really do not belong with "step-parents" as that is not natural. And a separated parent can not be a functioning parent or a real part of the family unit when they live in a separate house.

To pretend and to legally claim that paying child support money is the duty and obligation of being a parent when they are physically separated from their own child is an abomination of the family unit.

Child support needs to be fought, it needs to be stopped.

When one is in the right then it is better to lose in agony rather then to win through dishonorable methods,

but when one is in the wrong, then to lose is the agony, and to win by dishonorable methods is their only option.

The child support system disgraces everyone concerned.

They are still supporting the kid while together, why should it be any different when they seperate.

[missperky (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Child support needs to be fought, it needs to be stopped.

If that's the case you better get a law into effect that sterilizes these people so they can't have any more kids.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I do not like to just comment on such statements but I do understand this point of yours and of the gov and I say that it must be fought, and it is such self righteous decrees that make the fight more urgent and more necessary. So I am saying that I do understand your position and I can only state that position must be destroyed.

What do you understand my point to be? Because, I understood my point to be parents have to act like adults and stay involved in their children's lives regardless of where they live. Are you saying that point needs to be destroyed?

I stand by everything that I posted and everything that I wrote as my words are accurate and true for my comments. While TP is just preaching more slander here.

What did I say that was untrue?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by missperky

They are still supporting the kid while together, why should it be any different when they seperate.

Because when parents separate then that is violating the family unit and that is why one has to support the kid(s) and the separated parent does not.

It really is that simple.

When the parents are together then both share the support,

and when separated then they do not share because they are separate.

I do realize that many parents play this stupid divorce game of paying the unjust child support but it is only done under gov brute force and very many parents still defy the unjust child support in spite of the force, and rightly so.

The answer is thus: that the custodial parents and the gov are demanding cash payments in the form of child support in which you have no real right to do it. If a parent wants help with support then they need to stay married, or stay together if there was no marriage.

When parents separate then the family unit is broken and the standard of living goes down. Child support tries to stop that and it is wrong.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

When parents separate then the family unit is broken and the standard of living goes down. Child support tries to stop that and it is wrong.

I'm sure you'll say I'm twisting your words, because you're about to see what you just said here.

It's wrong for a parent to have their child's standard of living not go down.

Are you serious? You still haven't gotten to why, oh why, are your responsibilities to your child different because you're separated?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by missperky

If that's the case you better get a law into effect that sterilizes these people so they can't have any more kids.

Of couse not. Is more violence the only solution that people know?

I say for all people - to be fruitful and to multiply - and screw any law that says otherwise.

Plus having more parents getting intangled in the unjust child support system will give rise to more people like me that will fight the unjust system to the ground.

I say the more the better - make us some more babies, yes.