Solution for c/s.

[This_person]

Your dirty opinion just makes me angry and I will never wear your dressings of guilt.

I believe you'll never accept the guilt you should, but - as I've said before - that's your cross to bear, and you'll have to explain that on your judgement day.

But you say that justifies the unjust child support and that is not true. If at that time - if I had some real options, or some real assistance that would have helped me to protect and defend my own family then I say things would have happened differently.

You had other options, but running away was far too easy because you apparently have no responsibility level towards your family. You had the option not to run, to maintain your son's dignity by being there for him, to face your faults like a man. You ran. To this day, you still seem unaware that you can't run away from yourself.

Leaving your responsibilities behind was not your only choice, it was the easy road at the time. You made your choice, and your son and wife paid the price for your lack of responsibility. I presume your hair is so messed in your webpage picture because you still can't look at yourself in the mirror.

Like pay the dirty thievery or not, as I see that as an immoral choice.

The really sad thing for your son and society in general is that I believe you do see it as immoral. You're so self-centered, self-indulged that you see a man's responsibility first to himself, second to anything else he chooses, and last to his family. I say these things based upon your words. You don't see deserting your son and wife as immoral. That was just the only choice you had. You blame child support and divorce laws, but those were not happening yet - they weren't a part of the equation. You blame everything else but the culprit - YOU.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

You blame child support and divorce laws, but those were not happening yet - they weren't a part of the equation. You blame everything else but the culprit - YOU.

I say the same about you as I did to another,

that evil wants victims more-so than victories.

I have already admitted that I failed and it was all my fault and I got screwed,

but that is not enough for you as you must have something more.

The day will come when you will moch no more.

 

[This_person]

I say the same about you as I did to another,

that evil wants victims more-so than victories.

I have already admitted that I failed and it was all my fault and I got screwed,

but that is not enough for you as you must have something more.

The day will come when you will moch no more.

Read what you wrote - "I failed and it was all my fault and I got screwed...." YOU didn't get screwed, Jimmy! Your wife and son got screwed. YOU DID the screwing. Until you get out of the victim mode (poor me, I deserted my family and that makes me a victim?!?) and own up to your responsibilities, you'll never be able to be helped, and you'll never be able to help your son fix his screwed up life.

I don't mock you, I'm trying to get through your skull that you were the problem.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Read what you wrote - "I failed and it was all my fault and I got screwed...."

Since you feel that way then that is your business and not my concern.

To try to claim that my past justifies the injustices of child support is nonsense.

I think you have to keep up the personal attacks because otherwise you have no argument.

 

[This_person]

I think you have to keep up the personal attacks because otherwise you have no argument.

I don't think you understand, Jimmy. The personal attacks are because I have an argument. YOU personify that argument, that's why you see them as attacks.

 

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

Classic... what else can ya say?

My bigger point is that even if any parent were a true "deadbeat" then even that does not justify the thievery of child support.

It is my conviction that the parents have a right under the second amendment Link HERE, to take up arms against this tyranical gov and its unjust child support laws.

What troubles me more is why more parents do not actively fight back against this abuse of their families and I suppose that the population has become so morally weak that they do not know right from wrong and thereby do not start the war to defend and protect their families from the immoral gov laws.

So I figure that once the population finally realizes that cooperating with the unjust thievery of child support and receiving the stolen c/s money is harming our society and violating our families then the people will start to fight for real.

I pray for that day of justice to come soon.

 

[czygvtwkr]

The reason the child support has to take money from people is because there are people like you that will not pay their fair share, own up to their responsibilities.

You said children are a blessing, and yes I agree but they are also a responsibility and some people will not live up to their responsibilities (like you). Therefore the government is forced to intervene.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

The reason the child support has to take money from people is because there are people like you that will not pay their fair share, own up to their responsibilities.

You said children are a blessing, and yes I agree but they are also a responsibility and some people will not live up to their responsibilities (like you). Therefore the government is forced to intervene.

There is no such thing as a "fair share" and the so-called "responsibility" is made up out of nothing.

If the gov got out of the marriage and divorce business all together then the people would take care of their own business.

The big daddy gov is not "forced to intervene" like it is forced to steal too -not.

 

[czygvtwkr]

There is no such thing as a "fair share" and the so-called "responsibility" is made up out of nothing.

If the gov got out of the marriage and divorce business all together then the people would take care of their own business.

The big daddy gov is not "forced to intervene" like it is forced to steal too -not.

Oh lord

Ok lets try this: You and me go out to lunch, the check comes and I excuse myself to go to the restroom but never return. You are stuck with the entire bill. Would you pay the entire bill? This is exactly what is done to the other parent if you dont pay your child support.

 

[hvp05]

It is my conviction that the parents have a right under the second amendment Link HERE, to take up arms against this tyranical gov and its unjust child support laws.

You've been saying that for quite a while and I'm still waiting for you to lead the charge. You should just load yourself up with firearms, find transportation to Annapolis and storm the State House. See how far you get.

Although I'm curious, can you even hold a gun? Maybe you could get Jimmy Jr. to hold the gun while you shake your fist at the evil lawmakers.

What troubles me more is why more parents do not actively fight back against this abuse of their families

Because those people live in reality and have a true sense of morality, responsibility and caring for others. So it's understandable why you can't grasp this.


I'm disappointed you never responded to this:

Now, you said, "if I do lie then I reap what I sow." You were injured multiple times at work many years ago. Then you became estranged from and despised by your family - blood and extended. Incarcerated multiple times. Dupuytren's contracture (from excessive alcohol). Living on public/government aid. One failed campaign for public office - and in the midst of another. And laughed at and mocked by most of the people that learn of your beliefs.

See now, your story is very different from that of the man on the island, but the ultimate point remains the same... God has put you in a downward spiral of failure. You are reaping what you have sown by being a complete failure and disgrace. Yet you persist in your beliefs, even in the desire to spread those beliefs via public office. Don't you see that God doesn't want that to happen? You continually scoff at the others here - even though they are the ones who would actually put you in office, but how can you scoff at the will of God?

Did that not "make sense"? Was I "beligerant"? Did I "twist your words" at any point?

To put all that simply, let me ask this way: do you think God wants you to be successful? If so, why do you think you have not been? (I don't want you to "speak/think for God"... just give an opinion, if you can muster one.)

 

[This_person]

If the gov got out of the marriage and divorce business all together then the people would take care of their own business.

That's the problem.

See, there are people like you. There was no child support getting into your business, no divorce laws involved in your life (yet) - the government was not in your business at all. And how did you take care of your own business? You deserted your family - after cutting off all of your support to them - to let them "figure it out for themselves". They did. Your wife found a man to keep her warm at night, your son found a man to be his dad.

But, along the way, there were numerous interventions that the taxpayers were asked to get into. As taxpayers, we have a right to ask why people need our help. Turns out, Jimmy Jr and his momma didn't really need the taxpayers help, they needed Jimmy Sr's help. The government went in to help get it, because that's better than just handing our money out.

See how that works, and how what you suggest doesn't?

 

[This_person]

Did that not "make sense"? Was I "beligerant"? Did I "twist your words" at any point?

To put all that simply, let me ask this way: do you think God wants you to be successful? If so, why do you think you have not been? (I don't want you to "speak/think for God"... just give an opinion, if you can muster one.)

He stands by all he posts as true and his correct.

 

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

Oh lord

Ok lets try this: You and me go out to lunch, the check comes and I excuse myself to go to the restroom but never return. You are stuck with the entire bill. Would you pay the entire bill? This is exactly what is done to the other parent if you dont pay your child support.

Child support is not like that at all.

It would be better compared more like two people (male/female parents) deciding to purchase a new car together, then after arguing one gives custody of the new car to the other even though they both value the car very much, but then the one sees advantage and cries to the gov that now they need to buy gas and insurance for the car because they want the luxury of driving and of owning the car but call it unfair to pay the basic up-keep. The other owner now separated still values the car but only gets to drive it twice a month and the custodial tries to prevent that.

Of course if the person does not want to feed the new car (their own children) well then give the car back to the other parent.

And then they want expencive insurance because the car is very valuable, and the best gasolene because it is a nice car, but then the custodial cries that the other parent must pay the upkeep while not having the car or the children.

So this compares much more accurately with a car then with a a "lunch restaurant bill" because people and society does not concider a car as a burden as is so pompously claimed that the children are some very hard burden on the custodial which is a bunch of nonsense.

The custodials are being dishonest, the gov is being unjust, and the separated parents are being screwed.

So we need to start reccognizing the truth and the reality of custody and c/s.

 

[This_person]

Child support is not like that at all.

It would be better compared more like two people (male/female parents) deciding to purchase a new car together, then after arguing one gives custody of the new car to the other even though they both value the car very much, but then the one sees advantage and cries to the gov that now they need to buy gas and insurance for the car because they want the luxury of driving and of owning the car but call it unfair to pay the basic up-keep. The other owner now separated still values the car but only gets to drive it twice a month and the custodial tries to prevent that.

Of course if the person does not want to feed the new car (their own children) well then give the car back to the other parent.

And then they want expencive insurance because the car is very valuable, and the best gasolene because it is a nice car, but then the custodial cries that the other parent must pay the upkeep while not having the car or the children.

So this compares much more accurately with a car then with a a "lunch restaurant bill" because people and society does not concider a car as a burden as is so pompously claimed that the children are some very hard burden on the custodial which is a bunch of nonsense.

The custodials are being dishonest, the gov is being unjust, and the separated parents are being screwed.

So we need to start reccognizing the truth and the reality of custody and c/s.

Let's take your car analogy even further. Let's say that when you got the car, you both knew it was going to take up-keep, because that's just common sense. You both agreed to pay the car payment, both agreed to pay the insurance, you both agreed to pay the for the normal maintenance. Then, you decide to leave, because you can't stand the person you share the car with anymore. But, the car payment still needs paid. The oil still needs changed, the radiator still needs flushed, the tires still wear out. You still own the car, just like the person who has the car in their garage. The car payment is still in your name, too. The responsibilities are all still yours, just as the car is. It gets parked in the garage you left, but it's still your car, still your responsibilities. Thus, you are obligated to continue to provide the same portion (not all, your portion) of the car payment. Since the car has needs, like the oil and the radiator and the tires, they're still your responsibility to assist providing for.

See, if you don't pay the car payment, you're stealing from your car partner. They have to pay your share, therefore you're stealing the money from their account by forcing them to take up your slack. If you don't put the new tires on (your portion), you're risking the well-being of your car (god, is this a stupid way of talking). Cars need mechanics like kids need doctors. Cars needs tires like kids need shoes. Cars need garages like kids need homes.

As far as your concerned, if you're not the one driving the car every day, the car can go without. Cars probably can, 'cuz they're just inanimate objects. Kids can't. And if you don't have more obligation to your kid than to a damned car, there's nothing that can be done for you (but a lot to you).

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Let's take your car analogy even further. Let's say that when you got the car, you both knew it was going to take up-keep, because that's just common sense. You both agreed to pay the car payment, both agreed to pay the insurance, you both agreed to pay the for the normal maintenance. Then, you decide to leave, because you can't stand the person you share the car with anymore. But, the car payment still needs paid. The oil still needs changed, the radiator still needs flushed, the tires still wear out. You still own the car, just like the person who has the car in their garage. The car payment is still in your name, too. The responsibilities are all still yours, just as the car is. It gets parked in the garage you left, but it's still your car, still your responsibilities. Thus, you are obligated to continue to provide the same portion (not all, your portion) of the car payment. Since the car has needs, like the oil and the radiator and the tires, they're still your responsibility to assist providing for.

See, if you don't pay the car payment, you're stealing from your car partner. They have to pay your share, therefore you're stealing the money from their account by forcing them to take up your slack. If you don't put the new tires on (your portion), you're risking the well-being of your car (god, is this a stupid way of talking). Cars need mechanics like kids need doctors. Cars needs tires like kids need shoes. Cars need garages like kids need homes.

As far as your concerned, if you're not the one driving the car every day, the car can go without. Cars probably can, 'cuz they're just inanimate objects. Kids can't. And if you don't have more obligation to your kid than to a damned car, there's nothing that can be done for you (but a lot to you).

You have a point there so we need to take the analogy even farther as the custodial has taken the children all for themselves while the separated parents are put out, and the gov declares one parent the custodial and the other parents are legally separated from their children,

so no one has given the custodial any cost or obligation as in reality the custodial through the gov has taken or kidnapped the children and then force the legally alienated parents to pay a ransom in c/s cash or never see their own children again.

Thus the only separated parents that do submit to the child support thievery do so by threat and by force so the custodial and the gov does not steal their children completely.

It is immoral thievery, kidnapping, parent alienation, child abuse, and slander on top.

 

[This_person]

You have a point there so we need to take the analogy even farther as the custodial has taken the children all for themselves while the separated parents are put out, and the gov declares one parent the custodial and the other parents are legally separated from their children,

so no one has given the custodial any cost or obligation as in reality the custodial through the gov has taken or kidnapped the children and then force the legally alienated parents to pay a ransom in c/s cash or never see their own children again.

Thus the only separated parents that do submit to the child support thievery do so by threat and by force so the custodial and the gov does not steal their children completely.

It is immoral thievery, kidnapping, parent alienation, child abuse, and slander on top.

Here's a shock, after you said I had a point, you made no sense.

The children are not taken away from the separated parent. Not living full time with your children does not mean they are taken away from you. I know many non-custodial parents that have outstanding relationships with their children because they choose to do so. They call, they are involved, they work their differences out (as far as the chilren go), they attend school events, they listen to the teachers and custodial parent, they stay involved. It can happen, it's up to the "separated" parent to choose to do this.

Certainly, the custodial parent has cost and obligation. You've repeatedly stated so yourself. "If the child is needy, it's the custodial's fault only" you pontificate. Are you suggesting that all of the costs of raising a child can be accomplished with normal child support? If you are, you're proving your ignorance yet again about what it takes to be a parent. Why, even the child support calculator takes into account both incomes, so (once again) you're just lying.

It's idiotic to the extreme to say that child support is ransom, for the billionth time. Do I need to prove it to you again, by explaining it to you like you're three again? I'm not going to do that. If you can't figure out that you have placement rights to your child when you're the separated parent (provided you're not an abuser of some kind, an unfit parent of some kind) then you're unhelpable. I've asked you to show me the law that limits visitation to a person because of child support arrearage, and the best you could answer (days and days later) was the concept of being jailed for non-support. In other words, there is no law, you're lying again.

 

[JPC sr]

Subsidized Adultery is child support.

The children are not taken away from the separated parent. Not living full time with your children does not mean they are taken away from you. I know many non-custodial parents that have outstanding relationships with their children because they choose to do so. They call, they are involved, they work their differences out (as far as the chilren go), they attend school events, they listen to the teachers and custodial parent, they stay involved. It can happen, it's up to the "separated" parent to choose to do this.

I use to think that was true too, and it sounds like the truth but it is a fraud.

Having custody means providing whatever the child needs. To have custody while the child goes without any need is abuse. Custody means custody and not pawning the duties to others that are not there and that are legally separated and others that do not have custody.

It is up to the custodial to maintain contact with the separated parent, and it is the custodials duty to see to it that the child does not get brainwashed with the slander against the separated parent.

Thus it is the gov that violates the custodial and the family unit and the separated parents.

The gov has created the mess and has escalated the family demise.

I've asked you to show me the law that limits visitation to a person because of child support arrearage, and the best you could answer (days and days later) was the concept of being jailed for non-support. In other words, there is no law, you're lying again.

Being jailed for non support cuts out any visitation.

That is phisical reality.

 

[smoothmarine187]

For some, the left testicle is larger than the right one. For Chuck Norris, each testicle is larger than the other one.

 

[This_person]

I use to think that was true too, and it sounds like the truth but it is a fraud.

Are you saying I'm lying about people I know that this truth exists for?

Having custody means providing whatever the child needs. To have custody while the child goes without any need is abuse. Custody means custody and not pawning the duties to others that are not there and that are legally separated and others that do not have custody.

Let me help correct your failure to understand here. Being a parent means providing what the child needs, and more if you can. To be a parent of a child while that child goes without is abuse if you're capable of helping that child.

Sharing the load with your child's other parent is not "pawning the duties to others that are not there ... and that do not have custody". It's sharing the load you each took on when you first slept with the other. Each and every time a man and woman sleep together, they're taking that responsibility on themselves. Not taking on your share of the child rearing process is inhuman, disloyal, and irresponsible. It's pawning YOUR duty off to the custodial.

It is up to the custodial to maintain contact with the separated parent, and it is the custodials duty to see to it that the child does not get brainwashed with the slander against the separated parent.

I'll give you a point here (I think this makes it 1.5 total now). The custodial has a duty to see to it that the child does not get brainwashed against the separated parent. I've always agreed on this point. Your relationship issues with the other parent are not the child's issues, they're your relationship issues.

However, I doubt you meant the reality of what you said. I suspect you meant that the child should not be told that it is the parent's responsibility to be a parent to the child - that the non-supporting parent is not wrong for not supporting the child. When the kids reach a certain age, they should be allowed to know how their parent treated them.

However, it is NOT 100% the custodial parent's duty to keep contact with the non-custodial parent (NCP). The NCP has 100% responsibility to do this all on their own, and the CP has a responsibility to help bridge those times when the NCP falls down on his/her job. That's parenting. It has to be done together if you're both still alive, or the one NOT doing it is just plain wrong.

Being jailed for non support cuts out any visitation.

That is phisical reality.

Living up to your responsibilities, or at least demonstrating you're TRYING to cuts out any jail time. That's just the physical reality of it.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Are you saying I'm lying about people I know that this truth exists for?Let me help correct your failure to understand here.

I am not calling you a liar and not even dishonest.

I am saying that you are honestly wrong.

Perhaps it is just your perception that gives you the error but you are wrong in that.

Other parents put on that same pretence that you do.

It is just not real or true.

Living up to your responsibilities, or at least demonstrating you're TRYING to cuts out any jail time. That's just the physical reality of it.

That is what I said but you say it like it is some different message.

If the parents do not pay the child support then visitation stop.