Elections and Junk.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It has been brought to my attention that some people on this Forum do mis-use this school bus for children as one of their symbols to degrade others.

So just for the record I tell that I see nothing wrong with the short-bus and I never ever mean anything dirty or hateful when I use it, as other do.

That poster is being a pervert concerning school children and I am not going to cooperate with his dirty claims.

It has also been brought to your attention that I don't call you Shortbus because of any thought that it degrades children. I have children I raise and stay with because I do not tolerate degrading children. Your inability to comprehend this after being told this repeatedly is astounding to me even after months of speaking with you.

However, it gets you out of answering, so it makes sense when looked at from that perspective. More dishonesty on your part to get you out of a perceived obligation. That fits your actions in all of life completely.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Shortbus [ ]

I know you and others mis-use this symbol of children on a school bus as a way for you to give your perverted message.

It is disgusting, and you need to be exposed and ashamed of it.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I know you and others mis-use this symbol of children on a school bus as a way for you to give your perverted message.

It is disgusting, and you need to be exposed and ashamed of it.

It has also been brought to your attention that I don't call you Shortbus because of any thought that it degrades children. I have children I raise and stay with because I do not tolerate degrading children. Your inability to comprehend this after being told this repeatedly is astounding to me even after months of speaking with you.

However, it gets you out of answering, so it makes sense when looked at from that perspective. More dishonesty on your part to get you out of a perceived obligation. That fits your actions in all of life completely.

[This_person]

As previously posted in the Religion forum, I believe you are not mentally capable of coming to terms with a man who has raised children from birth off to college as being someone who would never degrade children - you've never been there, you can't understand. So, I'll repost without your moniker.

Originally Posted by This_person

Jimmy, I have spoken for myself. I've made my point with you over and over, and you're too thick to get it, because truth violates your inaccurate view of reality. I've tried for months to help you be an honest and better human being, and you not only refuse, you actively fight against the truth.

I'm trying to help someone else from going through that.

But, if you feel the need, I'll ask you: is there anything I quoted you as saying in that paragraph that you did not say?

[This_person]

Ditto, so we can move on with the substance instead of the pointless distraction:

Originally Posted by This_person

Jimmy, you're not seeking the power to do so, you're a candidate for HoR. You've been shown that each of your signature issues is not something that the HoR has any direct bearing on. You're seeking support for later runs locally, because you think people are stupid enough to follow you later because of your words now (this, of course, is just my opinion - not something you admitted to publicly yet). You know you can't affect abortion, you know you can't affect the child support system, you know you can't affect the local infrastructure, you know you can't affect marriage laws..... so what are you talking about?

[somdprincess]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Then I say you have fabricated that score and hold no credibility with me on anything you have posted or will post. Up through 2005 the 1600 point high was used on math and verbal tests and since 2006 it has been the 2400 point possibility with an addition of a writing portion, each section has a possible 800 point potential. This is easily verified so please, if you can, explain how you achieved 1800 out of a possible 1600, did you take the test through the muffler?

Personally I could not care less if you believe me or not. Will that change the truth? No. SAT Reasoning Test. Because the testing and the scores have changed, and because I am working on my second Masters. For students like me where there is a time gap it made sense to retake the SAT. My company explicitly said that they'll look at my best score, the scores also determine incentives with no age limit.

SAT scores all get reported, So why not take it again if the scoring has changed and if it could lead to certain scholarships or grants or just to see how much different you can do. You know you can take the SAT as many times as you want to.

[~mellabella~]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I do regret if some people take my comments soooo personally, but I say my comments here are far more correct.

1) I said that the Court laws give custody to only one parent like kidnapping the children and then demanding the child support as ransom money or else the separated parent will never see their kids again.

2) I said if the custodials feel their own God given children are a burden then give the kids to the separated parent instead of stealing the child support loot.

3) The child support needs reform and I will get the process started when I get elected.

You don't regret it, so don't say that you do. Its not kidnapping when the other parent wants nothing to do with them (Wait, haven't we been through this?)

There is a difference betweena child being a 'burden' on someone's social life and them being a financial burden. Hell, the adult themself can be their own burden! Who should be the ones to take care of them and their bills?

You don't want to reform child support, you want to outaw it. Sorry, it won't happen.

[somdprincess]

Originally Posted by ~mellabella~

You don't regret it, so don't say that you do. Its not kidnapping when the other parent wants nothing to do with them (Wait, haven't we been through this?)

There is a difference betweena child being a 'burden' on someone's social life and them being a financial burden. Hell, the adult themself can be their own burden! Who should be the ones to take care of them and their bills?

You don't want to reform child support, you want to outaw it. Sorry, it won't happen.

I would not like it outlawed that would be crazy but I would like to see change where both parents are treated fairly and where the NC parent is not treated like a criminal, (except for the deadbeats).

But to outlaw it? Then who will support the children?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by somdprincess

I would not like it outlawed that would be crazy but I would like to see change where both parents are treated fairly and where the NC parent is not treated like a criminal, (except for the deadbeats).

But to outlaw it? Then who will support the children?

Now you're beginning to understand our contempt for Jimmy.

He will be glad to explain to you that there are no deadbeat parents. The money should never have been "owed" in the first place, he says. He refers to child support as "subsidized adultery". It is ONLY the custodial parent's responsibility to support the child - "that's what custody means", he'll be glad to explain to you. If the custodial parent does not want to fully, solely support the child, there are government programs to help that parent. If they still don't feel they have enough, they should give the child to the non-custodial parent and stop their whining over seeing their God-given child as a "burden".


Search (link on toolbar above) for any of the phrases I've used, and JPC sr. as the poster. You'll see.

[~mellabella~]

Originally Posted by somdprincess

I would not like it outlawed that would be crazy but I would like to see change where both parents are treated fairly and where the NC parent is not treated like a criminal, (except for the deadbeats).

But to outlaw it? Then who will support the children?

Well the major problem with that lies in the parents. Sure some of them are mistreated, but in most cases that is not true. They are locked up for not supporting their kids. And that is how it should be. Do I think they should have to pay ridiculous amounts? No. But a fair amount to help out, yes. Do I think custody/child support should be handed over without some real investigating? Of course not. But to say that there are no such thing as deadbeats as Jimmy claims is absurd. Not all these parents are innocent, nor are they all guilty. But there are quite a few who are very guilty.