Elections and Junk. - Page 40

somdprincess · 12-13-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by This_person

I'm not trying to speak for Princess, but the reasoning speaks for itself. Seriously, though, look at the wording - "argued with reason", "everything ... posted was backed up".... YOU should try those things some time.

However, should I say something, that doesn't make it fact. As I've told you repeatedly, Wiki is not a source, and neither are the loon sites you go to. Try valid, unbiased sites, and see what you get from there.

Princess, I hope you don't mind my quoting you.

Nope not at all.

Giantone · 12-13-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somdprincess

Well, he can speak for me. So far everything TP has posted was backed up and argued with reason.

Same here.

Giantone · 12-13-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Your dirty interpretations and your dirty mind does not apply to anything that I say.

Your an idiot.Taking care of your family does'nt apply to you either!!!!

*hvp05* ^(Premo) · 12-13-2007, 09:49 PM

This thread has been quite BUSY for the past 3 days!

I've been reading, but haven't had the time to respond... until now; I had to go back ~150 posts to pick up where I left off.

Jimmy, I appreciate that you responded to my last post so promptly - especially when you so often ignore my confronting your inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Now down to business...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It is because I have to tell things in short post while the story covers some 15 years of child support. Of course I could try to write a year by year autobiography but I say not.

The above still does not explain the inconsistency between your recollections of your history. You can potentially give a short paragraph synopsis and still be just as accurate as relaying a year-by-year account, which I would not care to read anyhow.

To somdprincess's question, "Since both of you had the child, and you left why was it only up to the mother to take care of the child?" you replied, "It was the law that got in the way. I was happy to help with my son, but I was not and still am not happy with being violently robbed." (Original post.) I then proceeded - by recalling your words in this post - to remind you that you previously had said that the law was not even involved in your case for more than two (2) years after you had left town of your own free will. In fact, your wife had refused any legal intervention, for some reason. Only after you refused to pay your child his due support, did the law take what had been ordered; if you had had legitimate trouble paying you should have brought that to the court's attention instead of waiting until you were put into a corner and trying to wriggle free. (You know this to be true; I just want to update everyone - especially those who may still give you an ounce of credit.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It is not an accident that the law interferes and destroys the family unit because it is designed that way.

Wow, that's quite a revelation. So the majority of non-custodials who pay their support and whose families turn out fine are actually a mistake and not the intended result of the child support system?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

The poorer and working poor and lower class parents that need our help the most are not competant to get legal help or to help themselves.

Do your poor friends know you think they are "not competent"? For a Democrat who should be playing to the poor for votes, you're not doing a very good job. (But that is typical of you to insult your voting public and potential future constituents.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Then the smarter ones turn to crime as I had to do, and I still say that defying the thieves is better then serving them.

This should be another campaign slogan of yours: Instead of paying one's responsibilities, those who feel victimized by life should resort to crime because it is the "smarter" thing to do. I foresee that working very well for you - certainly can't hurt you any worse than you already have been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

But I am NOT running for election nor basing any of my positions based on my own past history.

You're not? Then why did you say this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I went to Court... and got immediately thrown into jail... I lost my rent and got out homeless in my car and they took me back to Court and put me back in jail again 179 days... ordered me to pay while homeless and jobless and about to freeze to death. I was thereafter at war with the dirty thievery of child support.

Seems pretty clear to me that not only some, but all of your current efforts against the child support system are based on your own experiences.

Of course, that's just your own words talking, and I'm sure you will tell us we can not trust such a fraudulent source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That being like a reformed addict that now preaches the evils there-of does sound like me.

"Like" an addict? I think your narcotics cases and Dupuytren's contracture - caused by excessive alcohol - speak well enough about that. And everything you say here indicates how much you have "reformed".

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Since Hoyer is so rich then it is better for me to stay low key and just stand on a simple message. "Pro-Life Cusick verses abortion-boy Hoyer".

So you have once again flipped your position from one week ago, when you said this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

... the report was light and easy to my position, and it did not exagerate the pro-life too much either so it made me sound like the best candidate of them all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

My words were written to you and about your children's mom, link HERE.

I did not say it about other situations.

Why have you chosen to - again - attack the messenger (TP)? So much for your self-proported conviction about attacking ONLY the message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

And it goes to you pushing or pressuring your new replacement wife / mother too.

Again attacking TP. Can you link to a post (posted prior to yesterday) where TP even remotely mentioned his current marriage? I can't recall one, so maybe you can show me where you got all your information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Being the "lesser vessal" only means that the females are not as physically large as the male.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

The woman is the lesser vessal so that if we push them then they break. Put pressure on and they fold. It is not their weakness - it represents their value

So, in your belief system, women have a lesser "value" because they are "not as physically large as the male"? I still fail to see the connection... but I guess that's why I'm not a misogynist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Well I stand by everything

That's right, buddy! You stand against all those nasty facts, credibility, and reliability, no matter how hard or how many people prove you wrong and inconsequential!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It works for me and I like my stance quite well as that is why I keep repeating it. The fact that it might irritate you does gives it an extra flavor to my joy.

So you like being proven wrong and inconsistent. Why do you so enjoy being beaten? I already know why you find joy in irritating others, as that is a classic trait of the sociopath, so I won't further address that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I do not believe you know what that word means, and not dictionary meaning but in application here.

This just made me laugh.

The only person that reads or follows the "JPC Dictionary" is...

you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPC sr

In my opinion and beliefs then I judge for myself if the info is acceptable or not so I do not put any trust in any thing outside of my own decisions.

I see. How's that working out for you?

Oh, completely downhill... you don't say.

Quote:

So now if I hear a true statement from a weak source then I accept the truth without accepting the source.

Or you attack the source - as you have recently done with TP, or you entirely ignore the source, as you do with most people who offer you the occasional pesky fact.

Well, this has been quite a mammoth post! You said you read all the posts in your threads... but will you respond in any real form?

This_person · 12-13-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hvp05

This thread has been quite BUSY for the past 3 days!

I've been reading, but haven't had the time to respond... until now; I had to go back ~150 posts to pick up where I left off.

Jimmy, I appreciate that you responded to my last post so promptly - especially when you so often ignore my confronting your inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Now down to business...
The above still does not explain the inconsistency between your recollections of your history. You can potentially give a short paragraph synopsis and still be just as accurate as relaying a year-by-year account, which I would not care to read anyhow.

To somdprincess's question, "Since both of you had the child, and you left why was it only up to the mother to take care of the child?" you replied, "It was the law that got in the way. I was happy to help with my son, but I was not and still am not happy with being violently robbed." (Original post.) I then proceeded - by recalling your words in this post - to remind you that you previously had said that the law was not even involved in your case for more than two (2) years after you had left town of your own free will. In fact, your wife had refused any legal intervention, for some reason. Only after you refused to pay your child his due support, did the law take what had been ordered; if you had had legitimate trouble paying you should have brought that to the court's attention instead of waiting until you were put into a corner and trying to wriggle free. (You know this to be true; I just want to update everyone - especially those who may still give you an ounce of credit.)

Wow, that's quite a revelation. So the majority of non-custodials who pay their support and whose families turn out fine are actually a mistake and not the intended result of the child support system?

Do your poor friends know you think they are "not competent"? For a Democrat who should be playing to the poor for votes, you're not doing a very good job. (But that is typical of you to insult your voting public and potential future constituents.)

This should be another campaign slogan of yours: Instead of paying one's responsibilities, those who feel victimized by life should resort to crime because it is the "smarter" thing to do. I foresee that working very well for you - certainly can't hurt you any worse than you already have been.

You're not? Then why did you say this...Seems pretty clear to me that not only some, but all of your current efforts against the child support system are based on your own experiences.

Of course, that's just your own words talking, and I'm sure you will tell us we can not trust such a fraudulent source.

"Like" an addict? I think your narcotics cases and Dupuytren's contracture - caused by excessive alcohol - speak well enough about that. And everything you say here indicates how much you have "reformed".

So you have once again flipped your position from one week ago, when you said this...

Why have you chosen to - again - attack the messenger (TP)? So much for your self-proported conviction about attacking ONLY the message.

Again attacking TP. Can you link to a post (posted prior to yesterday) where TP even remotely mentioned his current marriage? I can't recall one, so maybe you can show me where you got all your information.

So, in your belief system, women have a lesser "value" because they are "not as physically large as the male"? I still fail to see the connection... but I guess that's why I'm not a misogynist.

That's right, buddy! You stand against all those nasty facts, credibility, and reliability, no matter how hard or how many people prove you wrong and inconsequential!

So you like being proven wrong and inconsistent. Why do you so enjoy being beaten? I already know why you find joy in irritating others, as that is a classic trait of the sociopath, so I won't further address that.

This just made me laugh.

The only person that reads or follows the "JPC Dictionary" is...

you.

I see. How's that working out for you?

Oh, completely downhill... you don't say.

Or you attack the source - as you have recently done with TP, or you entirely ignore the source, as you do with most people who offer you the occasional pesky fact.

Well, this has been quite a mammoth post! You said you read all the posts in your threads... but will you respond in any real form?

Nicely done.