JPC, Rapper "50 Cent" Needs your help...

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

I don't know, I think the child support should be partly for the mother, especially if the child is too young to know better..I am going to be filing for child support in September, I'm not looking to break my x, but I need the money for child care and expenses for the baby solely, I've set all my expenses to the side?

You might mean no harm but taking him to Court is harm,

why do you not try to work out the issues with the child's dad instead of working it out by force of law?

When the Court gets done then you will have your child's father as an enemy for life.

You and the baby's father need to be together and not separate.

 

[This_person]

You might mean no harm but taking him to Court is harm, why do you not try to work out the issues with the child's dad instead of working it out by force of law?

Like you did with your ex, right? You were so open to helping her out..... Oh, wait, no; that wasn't you. You were the opposite of that. Perhaps she has already tried, especially since she's not done the court route already. Or, perhaps she doesn't want to be screwed, she wants to ensure some form of reliability of the support.

When the Court gets done then you will have your child's father as an enemy for life.

Only if he believes, like you, that he's not morally responsible to support his child. The vast majority of people, thank goodness, don't believe that. Only a true jerk would despises his baby's mother for wanting help supporting HIS child.

You and the baby's father need to be together and not separate.

I missed this at first. I didn't realize you knew her whole story already and were able to make such a statement. Sorry!

 

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

Yes, I do remember the Waltons. 3 generations of family living under one roof in poverty. What is your point?

As far as welfare and Social Services providing for your child, where does that money come from to provide those services? And why were THOSE services implemented in the first place?

I guess that you are refering to the money coming from taxes.

I see no problem with that.

The Welfare and Social Services were designed to promote the general welfare, link HERE.

 

[Toxick]

The Welfare and Social Services were designed to promote the general welfare, link HERE.

Welfare and Social Services promote INDIVIDUAL Welfare.

At the expense of the "general welfare".





For example: I get very little benefit by having my hard earned moeny stolen from me every 2 weeks and given to the dregs of society.

 

[This_person]

I guess that you are refering to the money coming from taxes. I see no problem with that.

Of course not, you live your life on the common kindness instead of on your own deeds

The Welfare and Social Services were designed to promote the general welfare, link HERE.

Why, oh why, do you continue to put forth stuff that has been explained to you correctly? That's a real question, one you've never answered.

James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, said, "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proof was not contemplated by its creators."

And, he stated, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

You, however respectful in intention, are trumped in your belief by the author of the Constitution. I think he who wrote it understands it far better than you, and he does not see what you see in it. Do you know why? It's not there, that's why.

You are wrong, you've been proven wrong so many times I've lost count, and yet you continue to put forth your lies. Why?

 

[This_person]

You continue to ignore this one, too, Jimmy

So, you admit you were not misquoted any of the other times? You just feel that this ONE point is a matter of differing opinions, and you lied about saying the rest were misrepresented?

Providing for a child is not hypocrisy. Where's the fraud? You make no sense, you just spout negative words with no meaning or reference to anything said. Children need parental support even when they're not starving and cold.

You've yet to explain how providing for your own child is hypocritical, or fraudulent. Hello?

 

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

You, however respectful in intention, are trumped in your belief by the author of the Constitution. I think he who wrote it understands it far better than you, and he does not see what you see in it. Do you know why? It's not there, that's why.

You are wrong, you've been proven wrong so many times I've lost count, and yet you continue to put forth your lies. Why?

You slander mine as lies but I put a link that backs up what I said, so the link must be lying too? or TP is just babbling - which he is.

You put big "quotes" but no link.

So anyone else reading this can see that I back up what I say and TP does not.

 

[This_person]

You slander mine as lies but I put a link that backs up what I said, so the link must be lying too? or TP is just babbling - which he is.

You put big "quotes" but no link.

So anyone else reading this can see that I back up what I say and TP does not.

You back up what you say with a link to the Preamble, which I think any functining American already knows. However, there's no information to back up your thought that the word "welfare" there means what you think it does.

Madison's Thoughts

In short, your link is pointless. Here's a link. Go investigate. Learn. PLEASE

 

[Toxick]

So anyone else reading this can see that I back up what I say and TP does not.

Anyone arguing with you could post backwards in spanish and rot-13 their text before converting to chinese characters and then deleting everything and post a blank post.


And STILL just about everyone reading would still agree with them over you.


And it is all of your own doing.

When 99.9% of the people around you, tell you you're completely bass-ackwards, perhaps you should at least consider what they have to say.







At least that's what non-sociopathic people would do.

 

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

You've yet to explain how providing for your own child is hypocritical, or fraudulent. Hello?

I put that info on the same post that I said you were being hypocritical and fraudulant, see it HERE.

The TP quote in that post is the hypocrisy and the fraud. Note the link.

It is because (for TP who fails to see) because TP has claimed and still claims that child support is supporting children's needs while I have repeatedly pointed out that the child support only pays for extras and luxuries and nothing else.

Thus in this 50 cent case where the child has all the child's needs met to overflowing TP is claiming that the needs of the child does not matter in stealing the child support and that it must be stolen to pay for the custodials luxuries and to spoil the child under force of law.

Thus calling it "child support" as in "supporting the child" is a fraud and it is hypocritcal.

 

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

You back up what you say with a link to the Preamble, which I think any functining American already knows. However, there's no information to back up your thought that the word "welfare" there means what you think it does.

Madison's Thoughts

In short, your link is pointless. Here's a link. Go investigate. Learn. PLEASE

That is just "Leonard R. Sorenson" opinion about Maddison and not from Maddison.

The U.S.C. preamble stands firm.

 

[Toxick]

I have repeatedly pointed out that the child support only pays for extras and luxuries and nothing else.

"Pointing out" something implies that there is a concrete fact that you can "point" to.

What you are doing is asserting or opining or claiming that child support pays for nothing but extras, however you've yet to provide a single fact that supports this assinine claim.


And frankly - even if this were the case, IT DOESN'T MATTER what it pays for. Your child, by the virtue of them being YOUR CHILD, absolutely, unequivocably, undeniably and positively entitles them to the benefit of your income, regardles of whether it pays for medicine, food, video games, or anything your stingy old cantankerous ass considers "extra".

 

[This_person]

I put that info on the same post that I said you were being hypocritical and fraudulant, see it HERE.

The TP quote in that post is the hypocrisy and the fraud. Note the link.

It is because (for TP who fails to see) because TP has claimed and still claims that child support is supporting children's needs while I have repeatedly pointed out that the child support only pays for extras and luxuries and nothing else.

Thus in this 50 cent case where the child has all the child's needs met to overflowing TP is claiming that the needs of the child does not matter in stealing the child support and that it must be stolen to pay for the custodials luxuries and to spoil the child under force of law.

Thus calling it "child support" as in "supporting the child" is a fraud and it is hypocritcal.

Very good, Jimmy, you actually answered the question. It only took, what, three times?

Different children have different needs. The needs of the child are not just bread and water and government cheese. While the amount of money being provided to support Curtis's child is excessive by your and my standards, not so by the financial strata in which he lives.

This is what you started telling me, actually, that the child support should be based upon a percentage of the non-custodial parent's income. Are you now abandoning that thought and changing it to be only based upon the bare "needs", as you perceive them, of the child? Try to stick to one story, please, so that we may communicate honestly.

You have repeatedly said that it only pays for extras and luxuries, but months of trying to get you to define what those things are have gone unanswered. HPV, Bob, myself - many others! We've all asked you to define your empty rhetoric, and you won't. So, until you do, we can't communicate - not when it's just you talking and not listening.

 

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

When 99.9% of the people around you, tell you you're completely bass-ackwards, perhaps you should at least consider what they have to say.

Things like right and wrong are not subject to the popular vote. If 99.9% vote one way then that does not make it right or wrong. So I did consider the TP post and I read his link and I stand by all that I wrote as mine being true and mine are correct and not his.

At least that's what non-sociopathic people would do.

The above submission does not diqualify me from the sociopathic club.

 

[This_person]

That is just "Leonard R. Sorenson" opinion about Maddison and not from Maddison.

The U.S.C. preamble stands firm.

It's his opinion, and Madison's quotes, Supreme Court decisions, etc. I'll stand that against your "perception" (sic) of the Preamble. Any day.

 

[This_person]

It's his opinion, and Madison's quotes, Supreme Court decisions, etc. I'll stand that against your "perception" (sic) of the Preamble. Any day.

Here's another

 

[This_person]

Here's another

And, another

 

[This_person]

And, another

Here's a fourth

I'm still waiting for you to have a respected individual agree with you........

 

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

And frankly - even if this were the case, IT DOESN'T MATTER what it pays for. Your child, by the virtue of them being YOUR CHILD, absolutely, unequivocably, undeniably and positively entitles them to the benefit of your income, regardles of whether it pays for medicine, food, video games, or anything your stingy old cantankerous ass considers "extra".

This above is the problem that child support is really just parenting police that order by force of law that parents spoil and pamper their own children or the gov will steal the money to spoil and pamper the brats in defiance of the parents.

No child is "entitled" to their parents income.

It is just more of big daddy gov screwing up the family unit.

The billionaire Bill Gates says he is going to give away his billions of dollars and give his children a small pittance of the cash like 10 million dollars because his kids do not have an "entitled" claim to his many billions.

But Toxick must be refering to the poor working parents that must spoil their children by force of law.

 

[Toxick]

Things like right and wrong are not subject to the popular vote. If 99.9% vote one way then that does not make it right or wrong.

This is true.

Hey look everyone! Lookit what JPC write up there. Two sentences strung together with nary a lie or fault betwixt.


Unfortunately he ####s it all up by not stopping right there.

So I did consider the TP post and I read his link and I stand by all that I wrote as mine being true and mine are correct and not his.

You considered nothing. There is no way that you could sit there and tell me that that you have actually, sincerely, and honestly considered anything that has been said to you since your first post in here.

You have a completely heinous platform. It has been demostrated beyond all reasonable doubt that it is heinous, disturbing and flat-out wrong, and yet you still persist.

While I admire tenacity, I cannot admire an absolute unshaking refusal to see past one's own agenda, especially when said agenda is self-righteous and deluded to begin with.

The above submission does not diqualify me from the sociopathic club.

And yet another correct assessment.


You've got momentum now baby!