Child Support Problem.

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

That's like saying a robbery is a political issue because the government gets involved instead of letting the property owner and the thief hash it out between themselves.

ARRRGH! There I go again! Wasting time explaining what you already know!!

Not, robbery is an act of violence and parenting is an act of God - children are a blessing.

So robbery and parenting are not the same catagory.
==
It is more a question of loyalties. Are we loyal to the gov over our families?

or are we first loyal to our family?

The child support is gov interference into the family unit and it is creating a mess.

The gov laws claim to be "supporting the Children" but it is in effect "parenting police" and when a gov forcibly violates the family unit as it does with child support then we are compromised beyond repair. This is why we have hundreds of parents going in and out of jail here in St. Mary's County and millions of parents being persecuted throughout the USA.

The only true option is to help those that resist and to help fight against those family destroying laws, or else surrender as sheep to the pretended almighty gov.

I say to reform the unjust system now.

 

[donbarzini]

The only true option is to help those that resist and to help fight against those family destroying laws, or else surrender as sheep to the pretended almighty gov.

Baaaaaaaaa!

 

[This_person]

Not, robbery is an act of violence and parenting is an act of God - children are a blessing.

So robbery and parenting are not the same catagory.
==
It is more a question of loyalties. Are we loyal to the gov over our families?

or are we first loyal to our family?

The child support is gov interference into the family unit and it is creating a mess.

The gov laws claim to be "supporting the Children" but it is in effect "parenting police" and when a gov forcibly violates the family unit as it does with child support then we are compromised beyond repair. This is why we have hundreds of parents going in and out of jail here in St. Mary's County and millions of parents being persecuted throughout the USA.

The only true option is to help those that resist and to help fight against those family destroying laws, or else surrender as sheep to the pretended almighty gov.

I say to reform the unjust system now.

Where are your loyalties, the concept of not wanting to be forced to provide for your child, or your family? It's your family that suffers when you don't provide, so you're being disloyal to your family by not providing, not be a child supporter. Your ideal of not having the government involved in your family ended when you asked the government to end your marriage. When you provide for your child, the government will leave you alone, AND (more importantly) your child will be provided for as best you can. It's only the parents that are disloyal to their child(ren) that have troubles with the laws.

 

[itsbob]

Where are your loyalties, the concept of not wanting to be forced to provide for your child, or your family? It's your family that suffers when you don't provide, so you're being disloyal to your family by not providing, not be a child supporter. Your ideal of not having the government involved in your family ended when you asked the government to end your marriage. When you provide for your child, the government will leave you alone, AND (more importantly) your child will be provided for as best you can. It's only the parents that are disloyal to their child(ren) that have troubles with the laws.

That and it doesn't matter what a judge says.. If you and your ex determine, and agree, that $500 month (for example) is enough, and the judge orders you to pay $1500, you can still pay your wife $500. The only person that can complain that you aren't paying the full amount is your ex. So don't blame it on the courts..

Of course what were you ordered to pay? $120? But instead of providing for your child you quit your job?

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

Where are your loyalties, the concept of not wanting to be forced to provide for your child, or your family? It's your family that suffers when you don't provide, so you're being disloyal to your family by not providing, not be a child supporter. Your ideal of not having the government involved in your family ended when you asked the government to end your marriage. When you provide for your child, the government will leave you alone, AND (more importantly) your child will be provided for as best you can. It's only the parents that are disloyal to their child(ren) that have troubles with the laws.

You are giving an unhealthy loyalty to the gov and a blind legalism to the law.

"Honor thy father and thy mother", not servitude to children.

There are no children going without any of their needs.

No child anywhere in the entire USA goes without because of not receiving child support.

If any child goes without it is only ONLY because of abuse or neglect by the custodian.

Child support is only extra cash for extras like luxuries and we do not need more spoiled children.

 

[Pete]

That and it doesn't matter what a judge says.. If you and your ex determine, and agree, that $500 month (for example) is enough, and the judge orders you to pay $1500, you can still pay your wife $500. The only person that can complain that you aren't paying the full amount is your ex. So don't blame it on the courts..

Of course what were you ordered to pay? $120? But instead of providing for your child you quit your job?

You do that and you are asking for it big time. The order is the order and while she is happy with $500 today, what is to say in 3 years she gets mad about something and turns you in for arrears? Whamo you owe $36K more and the judge doesn't give a damn about any "agreement".

 

[itsbob]

You do that and you are asking for it big time. The order is the order and while she is happy with $500 today, what is to say in 3 years she gets mad about something and turns you in for arrears? Whamo you owe $36K more and the judge doesn't give a damn about any "agreement".

Good point.. piss her off one too many times, and you're done playing.

 

[This_person]

You are giving an unhealthy loyalty to the gov and a blind legalism to the law.

"Honor thy father and thy mother", not servitude to children.

There are no children going without any of their needs.

No child anywhere in the entire USA goes without because of not receiving child support.

If any child goes without it is only ONLY because of abuse or neglect by the custodian.

Child support is only extra cash for extras like luxuries and we do not need more spoiled children.

JPC, we've gone over and over this... If a child could have a new shirt for fifth grade, that's not luxuries. Also, it's not about spoiling or not spoiling the child - it's about the parent living up to their responsibility. Honor thy mother and father goes hand in hand with living up to that as a mother and father! If a parent, any parent, custodial or not, withholds support, that child is going without.

 

[Pete]

JPC, we've gone over and over this... If a child could have a new shirt for fifth grade, that's not luxuries. Also, it's not about spoiling or not spoiling the child - it's about the parent living up to their responsibility. Honor thy mother and father goes hand in hand with living up to that as a mother and father! If a parent, any parent, custodial or not, withholds support, that child is going without.

Stop

He thrives off this stuff. When he gets bored he posts this gibberish to whip the crowd into a frenzy.

 

[itsbob]

You are giving an unhealthy loyalty to the gov and a blind legalism to the law.

"Honor thy father and thy mother", not servitude to children.

There are no children going without any of their needs.

No child anywhere in the entire USA goes without because of not receiving child support.

If any child goes without it is only ONLY because of abuse or neglect by the custodian.

Child support is only extra cash for extras like luxuries and we do not need more spoiled children.

They are not going without because WE pay for what YOU do not.

Why do you choose to put your obligations on the backs of the worker? We have to pay more taxes to support the children of the dirtbags like you. You bred them, now FEED them.

Spoiled? You mean like helathy? Not wearing second or third hand clothes? Not living of Ramen Noodles and hot dogs?? Did your son go to college?? Did anyone have a college fund set up for him??

Did you think as a form of protest to put the money into an account, no, you just chose to spend it, and quit your job so THEY wouldn't get it. Just imagine if you did the SMART thing and as a protest and you didn't pay it, but put away,, even in a mattress, you could have paid for your sons education with it.

You are such a disgusting Retard. .

 

[Pete]

They are not going without because WE pay for what YOU do not.

Why do you choose to put your obligations on the backs of the worker? We have to pay more taxes to support the children of the dirtbags like you. You bred them, now FEED them.

Spoiled? You mean like helathy? Not wearing second or third hand clothes? Not living of Ramen Noodles and hot dogs?? Did your son go to college?? Did anyone have a college fund set up for him??

Did you think as a form of protest to put the money into an account, no, you just chose to spend it, and quit your job so THEY wouldn't get it. Just imagine if you did the SMART thing and as a protest and you didn't pay it, but put away,, even in a mattress, you could have paid for your sons education with it.

You are such a disgusting Retard. .

Stop feeding the tard. He has been told this 1000000000000 times. He is not going to get it because he doesn't want to.

 

[This_person]

Stop feeding the tard. He has been told this 1000000000000 times. He is not going to get it because he doesn't want to.

I think you were right before, after all the times he's spouted the same thing and been told where he's wrong, he must do it just for the attention

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

I think you were right before, after all the times he's spouted the same thing and been told where he's wrong, he must do it just for the attention

See, that does not make sense to me, I tell you and the best response you have is that you think I am being dishonest.

I do not lie, might be wrong some times, but I do not lie.

 

[Toxick]

I haven't read any of this thread.


I've saved myself the time and aggravation by simply removing my glasses, and jamming one of the folding arms into my sinus cavity and pushing against the resisitance until my eyes started watering and everything to my left disappeared.


I'm guessing that I still came out ahead.

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

Your ideal of not having the government involved in your family ended when you asked the government to end your marriage.

That is valid point but it still does not excuse the abuses of child support.

Marriage was a religious institution but gov took the power away from the Churches by giving the writ of divorce - thus child support.

This is where the idea that people might not be allowed to divorce so long as they have under age children. They could still separate but no legal marriage. And that having a child constitutes a marriage with out a ceramony.

The separation of Church and State really needed to have included marriage since it was a religious institution and the gov has taken over marriages and created child support to cover the gov divorces and now it is messed up because the gov needs to be separate from the Church.

 

[This_person]

See, that does not make sense to me, I tell you and the best response you have is that you think I am being dishonest.

I do not lie, might be wrong some times, but I do not lie.

Then tell me why you repeat things you've been shown, repeatedly, to be wrong about?

 

[donbarzini]

Then tell me why you repeat things you've been shown, repeatedly, to be wrong about?

What? You don't speak sheep/ Well, allow me to translate. "Baaaaaaa!" means: "JPC is a moron".

 

[This_person]

That is valid point but it still does not excuse the abuses of child support.

Marriage was a religious institution but gov took the power away from the Churches by giving the writ of divorce - thus child support.

This is where the idea that people might not be allowed to divorce so long as they have under age children. They could still separate but no legal marriage. And that having a child constitutes a marriage with out a ceramony.

The separation of Church and State really needed to have included marriage since it was a religious institution and the gov has taken over marriages and created child support to cover the gov divorces and now it is messed up because the gov needs to be separate from the Church.

You remind me of the Peanuts cartoon where Lucy asks Charlie Brown if he knows how many ozzes in a lib. There are so many things wrong with your thoughts that I don't know where to start.
First, can you show me where we have a "separation of Church and State"? It's a common liberal phrase that doesn't really exist in the Constitution. Next, you've gotten so far off of the subject, it's not really funny anymore. The choice is there to support one's child or not. You say no child goes without unless it's the custodial parent's fault. I ask you, why is it only the custodial parent's responsibility, based on your statement that no child goes without unless it's their fault, why is it only that parent's responsibility to provide for the child?

 

[Bustem' Down]

The issue with child support is that it is a type of social engineering where the political purpose is to stop families from breaking up by punishing the parents, and particularly degrading the separated parents.

No, like car insurance, it's to make you pay what your responisble for, so I don't have to with my tax money.

 

[Pete]

If you stop poking the idiot he will stop posting his bullchit