JPC, Rapper "50 Cent" Needs your help...

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Here's a fourth

I'm still waiting for you to have a respected individual agree with you........

I have the US Constitution agreeing with me.

So it does not matter to me if you get 99.9% to disrespect it because I stand my ground with the preamble.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

No child is "entitled" to their parents income.

Please attempt to reconcile this thought with your belief that if a child goes without, it's the custodial parent's fault; and, being that person's fault, they should be punished for neglecting their child.

See, if it's ONE parent's fault, then that child is "entitled" to THAT parent's income - at least enough for the child to be properly provided for - that's the only logic that stems from your previous statement.

So, if you could move both of your feet from your mouth and try and put some "JPC logic" on those conflicting thoughts, I'd sure appreciate it.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I have the US Constitution agreeing with me.

So it does not matter to me if you get 99.9% to disrespect it because I stand my ground with the preamble.

Why do you insist on standing by things proven false to you?

You have people who've studied the documents, the people writing the documents, the laws as perceived by the Supreme Court.... Are you seriously telling me your interpretation is so positively correct that you CAN NOT ever be wrong, that people CAN NEVER know more than you on the subject they are experts at?

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

No child is "entitled" to their parents income.

God, did you even pass the remedial reading test?


I didn't say they were entitled to their parents income.


I said they were entitled to the benefits of their parents income.



By that, I mean if a parent makes a certain amount of money, any offspring they produce are entitled to a certain standard of living based on that income.

Capiche?

Originally Posted by JPC sr

But Toxick must be refering to the poor working parents that must spoil their children by force of law.

Toxick is referring to everybody.

And I never said anything about spoiling a child. Merely providing a standard of living.

For example: if I made a 7 figure salary, I will guarantee my kids and their mother wouldn't be living in a trailer and eating Beenie-Weenies for dinner. Alternately, if I made $8 an hour, I'd give all that I could to make their lives more comfortable. Even if their mother made a 7 figure salary.

In a perfect world, you're right - the courts wouldn't have to get involved. But I don't live in a perfect world. I live in one that's infested with deadbeats, idiots, malcontents and other assorted riff-raff. And that's the one I try to deal with. I like to fantasize about living in Utopia once in a while, but when I'm interacting with this world, I don't apply the standards of a nonexistent dreamland.


---

Addendum: Why are poor parents the only ones you think "work"? Many comfortable to rich people work to. In fact, oftentimes, it is that very work that makes them rich, do you not agree?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Why do you insist on standing by things proven false to you?

You have people who've studied the documents, the people writing the documents, the laws as perceived by the Supreme Court.... Are you seriously telling me your interpretation is so positively correct that you CAN NOT ever be wrong, that people CAN NEVER know more than you on the subject they are experts at?

We do not have to agree on things. We can have different opinions, we can disagree and keep disagreeing and move on.

I have been wrong about many things and I deal with it.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

We do not have to agree on things. We can have different opinions, we can disagree and keep disagreeing and move on.

I have been wrong about many things and I deal with it.

Name one in our discussions.

I'll start: I was wrong in thinking there was never any time the state would take child support and not give it to the child. The TANF program gives the money to the child, then takes it from the non-supporting parent. I didn't think they'd do that.

YOUR turn

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Toxick

By that, I mean if a parent makes a certain amount of money, any offspring they produce are entitled to a certain standard of living based on that income.

Capiche?

That is really not true and making it into the child support laws is a big part of the ignorant injustice of the child support system.

The children are only "entitled" to their real and basic needs and nothing else. Anything above a true need is an extra and a luxury. It is up to the parents to choose how to better raise their own children or how not to.

Mant parents give the opinion that to spoil and pamper a child is a form of abuse as negatively defecting as excessive corporl punishments.

Toxick might not call it "spoiled" but giving force of law that orders parents to give extras and luxuries and claiming the child has an "entitlement" to the fruit of the parents income is pure abuse.

Originally Posted by Toxick

Toxick is referring to everybody.

And I never said anything about spoiling a child. Merely providing a standard of living.

For example: if I made a 7 figure salary, I will guarantee my kids and their mother wouldn't be living in a trailer and eating Beenie-Weenies for dinner. Alternately, if I made $8 an hour, I'd give all that I could to make their lives more comfortable. Even if their mother made a 7 figure salary.

Yea but you do not, you are simply saying you want to impose that injustice onto others. I want the others to fight.

Originally Posted by Toxick

In a perfect world, you're right - the courts wouldn't have to get involved. But I don't live in a perfect world. I live in one that's infested with deadbeats, idiots, malcontents and other assorted riff-raff. And that's the one I try to deal with. I like to fantasize about living in Utopia once in a while, but when I'm interacting with this world, I don't apply the standards of a nonexistent dreamland.

You are living in a fantasy world of deamons,

your fantasy world is "infested" with "deadbeats" "idiots" "malcontents" and "riff-raff" and unless we work on a "utopian" premises then we will stay in the deamon world.

Originally Posted by Toxick

Addendum: Why are poor parents the only ones you think "work"? Many comfortable to rich people work to. In fact, oftentimes, it is that very work that makes them rich, do you not agree?

Yes, I know that the rich work and that is how many got rich. But the poor parents and the working class parents are far more negatively affected by the unjust child support laws.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That is really not true and making it into the child support laws is a big part of the ignorant injustice of the child support system.

The children are only "entitled" to their real and basic needs and nothing else. Anything above a true need is an extra and a luxury. It is up to the parents to choose how to better raise their own children or how not to.

Mant parents give the opinion that to spoil and pamper a child is a form of abuse as negatively defecting as excessive corporl punishments.

Toxick might not call it "spoiled" but giving force of law that orders parents to give extras and luxuries and claiming the child has an "entitlement" to the fruit of the parents income is pure abuse. Yea but you do not, you are simply saying you want to impose that injustice onto others. I want the others to fight. You are living in a fantasy world of deamons,

your fantasy world is "infested" with "deadbeats" "idiots" "malcontents" and "riff-raff" and unless we work on a "utopian" premises then we will stay in the deamon world. Yes, I know that the rich work and that is how many got rich. But the poor parents and the working class parents are far more negatively affected by the unjust child support laws.

You know what? Never mind.... 2A is right...

They say quitters never win, and winners never quit. Well, someone who never wins and never quits is an idiot.

I'm done being an idiot with you. Talking with you is like tuning in a Paris Hilton interview - pointless and counter-productive. It gives you credibility and credence to your "ideas". You have refused to learn, even when faced with overwhelming evidence against your "thoughts". I never thought I would say this about anyone, but you truly are not recoverable as a functioning, moral, productive member of society. You will remain suckling on the teat of handout programs, yelling about how it should be more for you and less for everyone else. You've raised a son to "think" like you do, and he'll raise his offspring the same way, I suspect (by lack of parenting). I'm at a loss, I know of no way to turn.

They say no one can be helped until they're ready to be helped. They are right.

So, Jimmy, you win. Your stubborn ability to remain oblivious of reality is more than I can deal with. Your ignorance and arrogance exceeds no other I've met before. I've called many people a waste of flesh before in haste and anger, and regretted it. I don't regret it with you, because I see nothing redeeming in you at all. You are Soddom, I am Lot. I've tried my best to bargain with God, but He's shown me there's not one worthwhile part of you.

Good bye.

[Ponytail]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

...

Toxick might not call it "spoiled" but giving force of law that orders parents to give extras and luxuries and claiming the child has an "entitlement" to the fruit of the parents income is pure abuse....I know that the rich work and that is how many got rich. But the poor parents and the working class parents are far more negatively affected by the unjust child support laws.

The child support laws are there to protect the childs overall welfare and standard of living from deadbeats like yourself. Just because parents of a child, for whatever reason, can not make it work as a solid single home family unit, does not mean that the child should have to go into poverty, which is what being on welfare is, so that the other non-custodial parent can live at a higher standard than his own children.


You are running for a public office, of which we must vote you in. IF you can not get us to agree with the issues that are on your ticket, we can not vote for you. This is why we keep asking for logical answers. We can agree to disagree. Normally, that isn't a problem here, or anywhere else. But you are expecting us to follow your lead, and vote for you. You have not convinced a single person here or anywhere else, that you have the mental capacity to hold a public office any higher than that of Janitor. "Agreeing to Disagree" will not get you any votes.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

You know what? .... 2A is right...

So, Jimmy, you win.

Good bye.

Thank you for conceding,

I think you will find the 2A surrender side to be rather crowded,

and in politics the victory has many applications.