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?