JP for Governor.

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

So because I have put myself through school and earn a decent wage that is providing for all my childrens needs, there is no reason for their fathers support? Is that what you are saying? That he isn't obligated to help provide for his children because we aren't together? Or I should quit my job and go on welfare and let taxpayers dollars provide?

I say there are lots of reasons for the father to help with his own children even though the custodial has taken the children from him the father, but I see no justification in using the force of law to demand the father to pay the custodial.

And both parents providing for their children is what MARRIAGE means and that is not what divorce is to means.

So if that father does pay you the child support he is only subsidizing the divorce and it would be empowering your adultery.

I say if you want him to provide for his children then give him the custody because providing is what custody means.

Riddle me how the state is stealing his money, when 100% of what he pays come directly to me for his childrens welfare? Or it's excess, because I have already met their needs?

It is excess as you declare, but it is stealing because the law demands the child support under threat or actual brute force and that is stealing.

To take some one's money by force or by threats is stealing, which is what child support does.

Of course the custodial only receives the stolen money as it is the State that is the true thief.

So you can smile and look pretty when taking the loot but it is still stolen money and the father can not refuse or else he will be brutalized on your behalf.

 

[Bay_Kat]

So if that father does pay you the child support he is only subsidizing the divorce and it would be empowering your adultery.

Again, your bitterness is showing. Why do you think there will be adultery?

I say if you want him to provide for his children then give him the custody because providing is what custody means.

You're going to tell me if the father gets custody he's not going to come after the mother for support? What are you smoking?

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

When my ex-husband walked out the only way I could have gotten anything from Welfare was if he would sign a letter stating he was not giving anything towards his children's welfare and he certainly wouldn't sign that although it was true! This was in VA.

Hi g-b-f, long time no see.

I do not know much about VA law except that there Courts are far more efficient than the MD Courts, and their Court rules as easier to follow. I recently sought after a Judicial Review in the Arlington Court so I got a taste of VA laws, and that case was never successfully filed so there is no record of it.

And Maryland is not that easy or nice to get on public assistance either, because they often make it hard on citizens to apply.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

Again, your bitterness is showing. Why do you think there will be adultery?

That is what people do.

They (Men and Women) break-up with their spouse and then move on to a new mate, and the child support loot makes that more comfortable.

I say if you want him to provide for his children then give him the custody because providing is what custody means.

You're going to tell me if the father gets custody he's not going to come after the mother for support? What are you smoking?

That is true that the fathers will sink as low as the worse of custodial Moms (just look at T_p) and I see that as being worse when the Man does it then for the Woman to live on the stolen c/s.

I just want for her to see that she has the prize being the children and she is only getting the child support through thievery and brute force, so try appreciating the circumstances instead of crying like an ignorant brat.

Very many Men are now-a-days seeking custody and turning the thieving child support against their children's mothers (like T_p) and it is only to cheat the Women in their own trap. I see it as gutless and cowardly in the extreme and when I become Governor then I will put a stop to that.

So you seem to see the wrong and the injustice in child support when it is turned against the Mom, but against the father you want to see nothing, so I insist we face it in every ways.

 

[bcp]

And Maryland is not that easy or nice to get on public assistance either, because they often make it hard on citizens to apply.

I wonder, what would you say was harder.
working for 40+ years to afford your own keep, or having to spend a week or so filling out paper work so you can live off the hard work of others your whole life.
Toss up for me, Hard time making that decision.

 

[This_person]

That is what people do.

They (Men and Women) break-up with their spouse and then move on to a new mate, and the child support loot makes that more comfortable.

That is true that the fathers will sink as low as the worse of custodial Moms (just look at T_p) and I see that as being worse when the Man does it then for the Woman to live on the stolen c/s.

I just want for her to see that she has the prize being the children and she is only getting the child support through thievery and brute force, so try appreciating the circumstances instead of crying like an ignorant brat.

Very many Men are now-a-days seeking custody and turning the thieving child support against their children's mothers (like T_p) and it is only to cheat the Women in their own trap. I see it as gutless and cowardly in the extreme and when I become Governor then I will put a stop to that.

So you seem to see the wrong and the injustice in child support when it is turned against the Mom, but against the father you want to see nothing, so I insist we face it in every ways.

Lying about me won't get you to draw me into your ignorant "debate" on why there should be no accountability of parents to their children

 

[daisycreek]

but the job of the State is to be promoting marriage and protecting families which it is not doing.

When I become Governor then the State will face up to reality and we will put a stop to this.

umm how does a man marry his 3-7 different babies mommas? This isn't Utah!

 

[Bay_Kat]

Ah JP, if you got your way, I just can't even imagine the domestic violence that will ensue. You just don't get it. When people can't live together, one of them just has to go, it doesn't matter what you or anyone says, it's in the best interest of everyone involved.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

umm how does a man marry his 3-7 different babies mommas? This isn't Utah!

It always seems odd to me that this one (1) alpha male is seen as the one responsible when there are 3-7 females that play along to make the babies. Those 3-7 Women were not innocent little victims that just some how happened to get pregnant by that Man.

It seems to me that a Man that has babies by 5 Women already have those 5 wives and it is just our law that denies this obvious reality.

The same applies with a Woman that has 3 children by 3 different Men means she already has 3 husbands.

The baby is what establishes a Man and Woman as husband and wife, and the legal marriage documents as done today mean very little since the papers can be broken easy enough.

So here is what I see as a great NEW idea, that any couple that has a baby would automatically become legally married (DNA is the proof) and that would be the new common law marriage but it would not carry the legal weight or the tax benefits of an actual legalized marriage.

And then the common-law married persons could not get legally married to anyone else until the children reach the age of 21.

And if a couple gets a divorce then they could not legally get married again until the children reach the age of 21.

That way if a person gets a divorce or refuses to legalize the marriage then they would remain single until the last child reaches 21.

Since the persons want to destroy their present marriage then the State would have no business permitting them to get a new marriage.

I do like this idea but it is not my new platform and it is just an idea to solve the issue.

Marriage use to be a religious Institution, but since the gov grants divorces then the gov has taken over the marriage business from the religions.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

Ah JP, if you got your way, I just can't even imagine the domestic violence that will ensue. You just don't get it. When people can't live together, one of them just has to go, it doesn't matter what you or anyone says, it's in the best interest of everyone involved.

All that is fine by me, as I have no real intention of trying to stop the licentiousness and debauchery of unprincipled people, but I do object to having the State laws empowering that kind of stuff.

 

[Bay_Kat]

All that is fine by me, as I have no real intention of trying to stop the licentiousness and debauchery of unprincipled people, but I do object to having the State laws empowering that kind of stuff.

debauchery, you are too much, you're just a dirty old man who has no business being anything but in jail for good.

 

[RoseRed]

All that is fine by me, as I have no real intention of trying to stop the licentiousness and debauchery of unprincipled people, but I do object to having the State laws empowering that kind of stuff.

Wow.

 

[Lexib_]

That's the beauty of it - they don't have to be! The government has a ton of money and there's no reason why THEY can't pay for stuff. Don't you remember? If the kid has a roof over their head and some ramen once a day, they don't need anything else. They are perfectly well cared for and making some poor schmuck cough up his hard earned money is just wrong.

I can't believe I'm the only person who remembers the line of thought...

Or living in a house with no hot water or heat in the wintertime.. CPS calls that "living like the amish" LOL They won't do anything about it either.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

All that is fine by me, as I have no real intention of trying to stop the licentiousness and debauchery of unprincipled people, but I do object to having the State laws empowering that kind of stuff.

It needs to be seen that child support does not hold the family unit together, it does not provide for the children, it does not punish the separated parents, and the child support as it is now does not serve any productive function at all.

And in fact the child support does the opposite in that it divides the family unit, it gives an appearance of providing without substance, and injustice for the separated parents is not the same as a punishment, and many people see the child support as the only duty of parenting which it is not.

If we really want to stop or slow down our social deterioration of broken families and children being raised in divided homes then the ignorant child support laws have got to go.

 

[This_person]

It needs to be seen that child support does not hold the family unit together, it does not provide for the children, it does not punish the separated parents, and the child support as it is now does not serve any productive function at all.

At least you realize it does not punish the separated parents.

And, if we use your life as an example, we can see that abandoning your wife and child, moving to a different climate and time zone, and never being there to be responsible for your child is the Jimmy Cusick way of dealing with "holding the family unit together".






You just kill me with your thought process. Are you related to nuck?

 

[bcp]

You know,
Maybe I will run for governor next time around.

I think that when it comes to these laws, deadbeat parents should be placed in prison to work off the debt that society has paid for them.

so, lets just say 27,000 in back support owed.
I figure that after considering room and board provided by the state prison system, $5.00 an hour is more than generous.
so
If you rack up a 27k bill, or I should say if the state pays out 27k to support the abandoned child, then the deadbeat parent will owe the state, 5,400 hours of roadside labor to pay the debt.

That works out roughly to 2.6 years of working for the state providing a service to repay the taxpayers.

Then I would start cutting welfare benefits. The way I see it, They get a house. since they dont work, and have no intention of working, they dont need a car. They dont need a phone.
The state can supply discount food directly to them on a weekly basis. There is no need for additional spending money.
they have shelter, heat water and food. their needs will be met to overflowing.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

I knew you would be back and I am surprised you held out this long.

I am the master that pulls your strings.

At least you realize it does not punish the separated parents.

I see "punishment" as some thing that is positive and productive while the child support is just abusive and destructive.

Like some people call it "punishing" children when it is really abusing them, so too we can punish parents or abuse them, and even if child support were viewed as punishing or abusing the separated parents (which is true) then there again we see that child support is just parenting police and has nothing to do will providing any real need to the children.

Are you related to nuck?

I have no idea of who or what that is or means, so I expect it is probably more baby talk from "the MAN".

 

[This_person]

I knew you would be back and I am surprised you held out this long.

I am the master that pulls your strings.

I see "punishment" as some thing that is positive and productive while the child support is just abusive and destructive.

Like some people call it "punishing" children when it is really abusing them, so too we can punish parents or abuse them, and even if child support were viewed as punishing or abusing the separated parents (which is true) then there again we see that child support is just parenting police and has nothing to do will providing any real need to the children.

I have no idea of who or what that is or means, so I expect it is probably more baby talk from "the MAN".

 

[maxima87]

So if a man walks away from his kids, no longer wishes to be bothered...and the mom is quite capable of providing...you think he should be free of his responsibility?

What is scary, real scary, is that there are some people that will actually vote for you.

 

[gary_webb]

Geez...I read this whole thread and the only thing I can think of is that's an hour of my life that I'll never get back.