Parenting Police.

[tirdun]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It troubles me that you guys can not understand that simple principle of saying what we mean and meaning what we say.

I call the principle - being honest.

Except that what you say is illogical and irrational.

You've adopted a position that is so far outside mainstream morality that it confuses people when they read it. A sane person would read your ramblings for the first time and assume that they were simply confused by your position or strolling into some inside joke, since no one could possibly argue that financial support for your own child was somehow morally wrong.

The reader then asks for clarification on your stance, which you will bury in yards of rant against the county or Dyson, peppered liberally with unrelated smilies.

Maybe the reader then thinks that you are joking, since you've made every attempt to look foolish. They then find web pages and newspaper clippings with your rant included, all suggesting that you are, in fact, a real person running a Quixotic campaign for national office on what might be the worst platform in a major political party in modern politics.

On the opposite end are the people who are attempting to delve into the core of your nonsense. Peeling each layer of rotten onion away to reveal the "why" and "how far" of your position. I can't say that I envy them in their task, but I admire their determination to stake you to a firm ground on your position, no mater how fantastical that ground might be. They aren't asking for repetition, by the way, they're asking for either clarification or expansion on your beliefs and conclusions.

In total, this is a lot to swallow. You'll have to forgive the casual reader who cannot fathom your crackpottery in a single reading or the investigator who is treading the quicksand of your moral reality to find further details.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I do this with "TP" over and over again and I will do it with you over again too.

So here it is again: I stand by all that I said and I stand by all of my postings.

So you stand by all the clear contradictions and blatant errors you made as mentioned in my posts - #174 and #175.

You stand by my summation that you want to see civil unrest, more children living on the street and growing financial drains on the government.

Your above non-answer indicates to me that you can not in any way meet the challenges posed to you in those recent posts. (Not that I expected you to anyway.)

If you're giving up here, why not just remove yourself from the Congressional race and crawl into a hole?

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tirdun

They aren't asking for repetition, by the way, they're asking for either clarification or expansion on your beliefs and conclusions.

I have actually learned a few things recently about his mindset that were unclear during his forum time last year. Nonetheless, as TP likes to point out, you can only go so far into his "logic" before realizing how tenuous his arguments are. Extremely simple, self-centered, not based on fact and relying on circular logic.

I think once we arrive at that point we have to admit there is not much else he can say. He does not give a reasonable, logical answer to most questions because such answers do not exist with regard to his philosophy. It comes down to stuff like "The laws are unjust because they punish, and they are punishment because they are unjust."

I think we keep hoping there is a kernel... a single grain of logic and honesty within him and, perhaps, we can somehow coax it out. But it hasn't happened yet and I doubt it ever will.

He is entertaining in a circus geek sort of way; I do wish we could break out of the boundaries of pounding child support more often, to see what else lies beneath.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by tirdun

Except that what you say is illogical and irrational.

You've adopted a position that is so far outside mainstream morality that it confuses people when they read it. A sane person would read your ramblings for the first time and assume that they were simply confused by your position or strolling into some inside joke, since no one could possibly argue that financial support for your own child was somehow morally wrong.

The reader then asks for clarification on your stance, which you will bury in yards of rant against the county or Dyson, peppered liberally with unrelated smilies.

Maybe the reader then thinks that you are joking, since you've made every attempt to look foolish. They then find web pages and newspaper clippings with your rant included, all suggesting that you are, in fact, a real person running a Quixotic campaign for national office on what might be the worst platform in a major political party in modern politics.

On the opposite end are the people who are attempting to delve into the core of your nonsense. Peeling each layer of rotten onion away to reveal the "why" and "how far" of your position. I can't say that I envy them in their task, but I admire their determination to stake you to a firm ground on your position, no mater how fantastical that ground might be. They aren't asking for repetition, by the way, they're asking for either clarification or expansion on your beliefs and conclusions.

In total, this is a lot to swallow. You'll have to forgive the casual reader who cannot fathom your crackpottery in a single reading or the investigator who is treading the quicksand of your moral reality to find further details.

Well that is really well said, and it is deep, and I think "T" is basically correct, but I do not know how to get around it either.

Plus I like Don Quixote and I think he gave the windmill a noble fight. Click HERE for Don Quixote.
--------------------

But for my two cents worth, I must reason the above "T" text under my religious scutiny.

The situation and mis-communications between me and the hecklers remind me of the Bible when the Bible says such crazy things like; "... God created the Heavens and the earth ..." and it is such a stunning truth that most people are stopped right there in the beginning because it is too much for their violent sin filled minds to comprehend. Now God could have inspired it to be written like this; "... in the beginning there was a big bang and after billion years the earth slowly formed and on and on ... " so then people could easily understand the message, but no.

We give the cold hard truth straight up and the heathen can not understand it, and so I think my message is basicly the same way, being such a truth - that the child support is evil - so that these posters just can not handle it.

Quixote would be proud.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by hvp05

He is entertaining in a circus geek sort of way; I do wish we could break out of the boundaries of pounding child support more often, to see what else lies beneath.

A challenge I see.

TinkerBell did her challenge quite well, see HERE.

Just remember that the great knight of Don Quixote has influenced me.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Just remember that the great knight of Don Quixote has influenced me.

Uh, boy... I can imagine you now sitting at your computer cloaked in a black sheet and wearing a cut-out napkin as a mask while waving a broken car antenna as your mighty weapon.

[Ender]

One thing history has dictated very well is that religion doesn't mix with politics very well. I'm aware that this country was founded on the desire for free religion; but, times have changed and throughout that time - it's been obvious that religion only gets in the way of 'logic'. I'm not aiming to insult religion, just more so an obvious evalution that many historians in the past have mentioned at one time or another (beyond American history alone, mind you). Mr. Cusick, it's obvious that most of your beliefs are based on your religious preference; as it's something that you come back and cross-examine to use as your justification of your responses to many of the posts that are flammatory to your own person. Your philosophy is that of someone who will is a 'devoted' worshipper without the perception to be more open-minded (no offense intended by this).

Your views on what you consider "parenting police" are fairly controversial. The only problem is that, due to your past, it makes your perception and belief to be base on a heavy bias. This is where you're going wrong in trying to explain your logic and views on this forum; many of the people know your past or have heard of your past through other means. Not to speak too down on Southern Maryland - but the gossip mill is one of the strongest social circles in this area (and you're a 'victim' of this).

In my opinion, you're on the "right track" but without the right logic backing it up. No, enforcing child support isn't unholy or 'theft'. But your focus point of the rich getting money from the poor makes slightly more sense; that is, if the State of Maryland didn't weigh how much you should pay base on your income and contribution to the family prior to the relationship 'bust'. Another problem with you making this thread, particularly on this forum, is that there are people who are 'victims' of failed relationships where they depend on child support in order to raise their child sufficently (getting what they need). I'm unsure as to why you've founded most of your opinion of this matter on your religion though, it makes very little sense.

You, of all people, should know as to how modern relationships work. Majority of those who are having children aren't even married - but the father and mother are both legally responsible for the child. Who and why the relationship ended isn't contributional to the situation either - there's still someone else involved that's based on the former relationship, just that it's outside of the relationship itself. A child is a living, breathing, bonifide being. Those of whom in this world that created said being are legally responsible of them in the court of law. This isn't the legal system telling the parents how to raise their child - just that they're financially responsible for the person they brought into this world. There's not much you've argued against that much, at least. For you to mention how it's a person's moral liability to try to keep a relationship going is slightly hypocrital of you. I ask you: Would you want to be with someone with a drug abuse problem? Would you stay with someone who's beating you and your children? Would you stay with someone who has mentioned many times that they don't love you? Sometimes it ends up being highly immoral for a person to stay in a relationship. In may modern day relationships, this is the case - no matter how you'd want to place it. This isn't the 1940's to 1950's where people could handle being in these relationships due to religious-binds or for their children. Why? Because people have come to find out that these types of relationships mess up their children on a psychological scale (due to the fact that they are those 'messed up' children of the previous generation/s).

For you to try to compare social classes between a relationship just confirms there is bias in your perception of things due to a bitter past experience. I'm not one to prey into someone's personal life - but this is one of those situations where your "personal life" affects your opinion on something that's politically justified and the only people who complain are those who are self-diagnosed "victims" of the scenarios that you're placing anyways.

So just for a moment, I'd recommend looking at your posts without thinking through your own eyes/mind for a moment. Think of it through someone who's been through a bad divorce (not even their fault) or having to struggle with one or two kids without child support whatsoever. Once you come to that stage in your mentality, then...and only then, will you understand fully why there are people that are detesting you with every fiber of their being. Your "braggart" personification due to your political possibilities in the future just makes people look at you negatively from 'first impression' - so either work from there, or work from the point they see these threads that shine a totally dark light on your personality and beliefs.

Edit:
Ouch, looks like someone felt like they needed to negatively "karma" me just because of this post. How frivilous. You're the greatest. ;p

[This_person]

Originally Posted by hvp05

Uh, boy... I can imagine you now sitting at your computer cloaked in a black sheet and wearing a cut-out napkin as a mask while waving a broken car antenna as your mighty weapon.

MY MIND'S EYE! MY MIND'S EYE!!!!

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Ender

One thing history has dictated very well is that religion doesn't mix with politics very well.

I know a lot of people like to believe that but I find it to be untrue. My study of history does dictate that religion and politics go hand in hand - and any political leader that is fool enough to avoid the religious dictates has been doomed to fail. I challenge anyone to show me a politician or political policy outside of religious influence that has ever succeeded. Napoleon was an example of a political leader that failed to bring in religion to his aid.

History shows us Alexander the Great with his Hellenism religion, Roman Emperor Constantine and Catholicism, Henry VIII, George Washington and his "under God" rhetoric, Abe Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, even G.W. Bush and his anti abortion stance is his true religious base.

In Muslim Countries they want a religious gov (Theocracy) because the people value Isam more then gov, so any muslim politician that excludes Islam is asking to be overthrown, as it will happen in Iraq when the USA stops upholding and guarding that puppet regime there.

Religion and politics do not always mix well but politics without religion is doomed to fail everytime.

Originally Posted by Ender

Your views on what you consider "parenting police" are fairly controversial. The only problem is that, due to your past, it makes your perception and belief to be base on a heavy bias.

I see no problem with that except that it is not a "bias" but only my personal knowledge and experiences. In fact I see my so called "bias" as my blessing. I figure that without my perspective then I would be another one of these blind sheep following a foolish path.

Originally Posted by Ender

This is where you're going wrong in trying to explain your logic and views on this forum; many of the people know your past or have heard of your past through other means. Not to speak too down on Southern Maryland - but the gossip mill is one of the strongest social circles in this area (and you're a 'victim' of this).

I do understand the negativity and I fully expect the "gossip" to help me acomplish my truest goals of getting the message out and strirring up the rabble in our democratic Republic.

Originally Posted by Ender

In my opinion, you're on the "right track" but without the right logic backing it up. No, enforcing child support isn't unholy or 'theft'. But your focus point of the rich getting money from the poor makes slightly more sense; that is, if the State of Maryland didn't weigh how much you should pay base on your income and contribution to the family prior to the relationship 'bust'.

I do not really understand what is meant by that????

Originally Posted by Ender

Another problem with you making this thread, particularly on this forum, is that there are people who are 'victims' of failed relationships where they depend on child support in order to raise their child sufficently (getting what they need). I'm unsure as to why you've founded most of your opinion of this matter on your religion though, it makes very little sense.

Because religion is the base and I trust the custodials and particularly I trust the women to do the right thing once they see the wrong being done now. So the fact that I rock the ill-gotten worlds of the custodials is the idea in many post.

Originally Posted by Ender

A child is a living, breathing, bonifide being. Those of whom in this world that created said being are legally responsible of them in the court of law. This isn't the legal system telling the parents how to raise their child - just that they're financially responsible for the person they brought into this world. There's not much you've argued against that much, at least.

It is a contradiction and I have tried to show the error and even you post it falsely.

Child support is a legal responsibility done by the Courts so it is the legal system telling parents how to raise their kids. That is the reality and saying not is a falsehood. Your contradiction is not accurate.

Originally Posted by Ender

For you to mention how it's a person's moral liability to try to keep a relationship going is slightly hypocrital of you. I ask you: Would you want to be with someone with a drug abuse problem? Would you stay with someone who's beating you and your children? Would you stay with someone who has mentioned many times that they don't love you? Sometimes it ends up being highly immoral for a person to stay in a relationship. In many modern day relationships, this is the case - no matter how you'd want to place it.

I do not see mine as being hypocritical. The hypocrisy comes from one doing wrong and talking right, but it does not mean some one that made mistakes in years past and now preaches the virtue of not making those same mistakes. You are mixing up hypocrisy with honest repentance.

People can still separate without getting a divorce. The marriage use to be a religious institution and the biggest mistake was letting the gov take over the religious authority. If we are not going to promote marriage and the true parents staying with their own God given children then our society is truely doomed and the sooner it gets overthown the better.

Originally Posted by Ender

This isn't the 1940's to 1950's where people could handle being in these relationships due to religious-binds or for their children. Why? Because people have come to find out that these types of relationships mess up their children on a psychological scale (due to the fact that they are those 'messed up' children of the previous generation/s).

I find that to be a cop-out excuse, because the broken family unit is what hurts the children most and not keeping the family unit together. They can still separate without getting a divorce but that divorce still only comes from our family break-up laws by our immoral gov and that is what I want to change.

Originally Posted by Ender

For you to try to compare social classes between a relationship just confirms there is bias in your perception of things due to a bitter past experience. I'm not one to prey into someone's personal life - but this is one of those situations where your "personal life" affects your opinion on something that's politically justified and the only people who complain are those who are self-diagnosed "victims" of the scenarios that you're placing anyways.

That is a bunch of worthless crap - or slander more correctly.

Originally Posted by Ender

So just for a moment, I'd recommend looking at your posts without thinking through your own eyes/mind for a moment. Think of it through someone who's been through a bad divorce (not even their fault) or having to struggle with one or two kids without child support whatsoever. Once you come to that stage in your mentality, then...and only then, will you understand fully why there are people that are detesting you with every fiber of their being. Your "braggart" personification due to your political possibilities in the future just makes people look at you negatively from 'first impression' - so either work from there, or work from the point they see these threads that shine a totally dark light on your personality and beliefs.

I know some others see me through their own false and negative perspectives but I do not see that as any concern of mine. I do not attempt to gain that kind of control over others, especially beligerant others.

Originally Posted by Ender

Edit:
Ouch, looks like someone felt like they needed to negatively "karma" me just because of this post. How frivilous. You're the greatest. ;p

I am the King of Red Karma on this Board.

One must be able to take a hit and show that red karma to the world.

The green karma is a sign of conformity and security for those that need such feelings.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

For JPC sr...

Quote:
"If anyone doesn't take care of his own relatives, especially his immediate family, he has denied the Christian faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Tim 5:8

Even if a parents did that and was an unbeliever then that still gives no one the right to steal the unbeliever's money or to receive the unbeliever's stolen money.

The scriptures do not work against me because I am on the right side.