Solution for c/s.

[This_person]

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.

I see. It's your thought that the NCPs are wrong about their relationship with their child, the CP is wrong about the NCP and child's relationship, and the child is wrong about the NCP and child's relationship. They're all wrong about how it works, but you are right (though you know nothing of which I speak).

No.

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.

Now you're just trying to be funny. It's not funny. It's serious to neglect a child, and I don't think you have any idea how ruinous it is neglect your child. You think your child is fine.

Parents not paying their child support are not living up to their responsibilities. They're passing their responsibilities on to the other parent, shirking their own. You knew it was the point, and I don't take your lightweight attempt at humor as funny. It's just sad.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Child support is not like that at all.

Ok how about this revision. You and me go to lunch and order I go to the restroom and disappear. You have both dinners in front of you (ie you have custoday or the prize) and you have to pay for both.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

I see. It's your thought that the NCPs are wrong about their relationship with their child, the CP is wrong about the NCP and child's relationship, and the child is wrong about the NCP and child's relationship. They're all wrong about how it works, but you are right (though you know nothing of which I speak).

No.

That is because I am including into the equation of the meddling gov that steals and slanders and violate the family unit, while you preach as if the gov is some irrelivant by-stander.

That is the difference in our perspective is you exclude the big ugly family wrecker gov in your opinions while I see the immoral gov as instrumental in violating the families.

Now you're just trying to be funny. It's not funny. It's serious to neglect a child, and I don't think you have any idea how ruinous it is neglect your child. You think your child is fine.

Parents not paying their child support are not living up to their responsibilities. They're passing their responsibilities on to the other parent, shirking their own. You knew it was the point, and I don't take your lightweight attempt at humor as funny. It's just sad.

I am not trying to be funny at all. You are just unjustly blaming the separated parents while ignoring the immoral violation of the family unit by the gov through its unjust laws.

When we show the injustices then it is plain why families are broken.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Just how does the government wreck the family unit? Last time I checked the government doesn't turn people into drunks, doesn't cause them to fight with their spouse, doesn't cause them to cheat, doesn't cause them to generally mistreat their spouse etc etc.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Ok how about this revision. You and me go to lunch and order I go to the restroom and disappear. You have both dinners in front of you (ie you have custoday or the prize) and you have to pay for both.

No, food just disapears and a meal ticket is just a one time event.

Lets say the two people buy a winning ticket for a grand prize of a brand new car,

then one gives the prize over to the other and walks away on foot because he has no car at all.

Then the one in the new car drives up to the walker and says I have money to pay for the gas and insurance but since you stuck me with this new car then now you have to pay me for the expences to drive the car around for the next 18 - 21 years because it is a burden for the custodial to put gas in their own brand new car.

That is far more like a realistic comparison.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Just how does the government wreck the family unit? Last time I checked the government doesn't turn people into drunks, doesn't cause them to fight with their spouse, doesn't cause them to cheat, doesn't cause them to generally mistreat their spouse etc etc.

Because the marriage or union is a religious act but the gov grants a divorce.

A young couple have a baby and the gov says go ahead and separate as it is okay by our laws. The gov then orders one parent as having custody thereby legally shutting out the separated parent, then instead of allowing the parents to work out their own business the gov orders child support and rediculous visitation scheduals and the family unit is utterly destroyed by gov decree.

Our society (under gov dictates) does push alcohol onto the population, it does create the stress that people fight over, it legally protects adultery and the adulterers that violate the family are gov protected, so the gov does not directly cause every mistreatment but the gov rewards the population by undermining the family structure and by promoting the family break ups.

We do need a drastic change here.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Ok, what if the man and woman never got married? Or what if they don't believe in God?

 

[hvp05]

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.

Why do you say at one point that parents should be allowed to make their own decisions, yet when [most] parents do willingly pay their support you refer to them as scared, weak or ignorant? I think it's another implicit example of your pomposity to think that, if given the chance in a world without child support laws, most parents would act as you did and abandon their offspring. In fact, I'm pretty sure the percentage of paying parents would remain stable and close to what it is now because most people are not heartless sociopaths.

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

I wait with baited anticipation to see what else you'll add to this list of accusations - what else you will blame the government for. I picture you running through that like Jackie Chiles on Seinfeld (if you've seen him you know what I mean).

Lets say the two people buy a winning ticket for a grand prize of a brand new car,

What is it with you making car analogies? Maybe you should have tried to work as a mechanic or a car salesman. Either occupation would have made good use of your slick language and telling half-truths. And either would definitely have been better than turning into a leech on the taxpayers... as you did.

 

[hvp05]

Thinking about a new signature...

(7/28/07) I do not know of that ever happening and I do not believe such a scenerio could ever happen as it is just unrealistic.

(7/29/07) I do not say that I "deserted" my family, I left them but the claim to "deserting" is an accusation from you and from others.

(6/14/07) ... then it was thought that they could live off the family or the gov if need be, but since there was property and credit available then the time restraints became a problem, so I deserted to let them figure it out.

I tip my hat to TP.

But I don't know that I want this guy occupying my sig line for any amount of time...

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Ok, what if the man and woman never got married? Or what if they don't believe in God?

In my opinion, when two have a baby then that makes them married.

Saying otherwise makes the family unit to mean very little if it is only by gov decree.

A baby means that God has blessed the union,

that was the meaning in consummating the marriage which brought out the babies.

People do not have to believe in God but our gov has infested and corrupted the religious institution of marriage and now we have a society of broken families being orchestrated through the immoral laws of our immoral gov.

I am just trying to give our society and our gov a better way and a more correct way.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Why do you say at one point that parents should be allowed to make their own decisions, yet when [most] parents do willingly pay their support you refer to them as scared, weak or ignorant?

Taking care of their own children by their own standards and do not let the big daddy gov be telling then what to pay and how much to pay and the child support often does not even get to the children.

That is not doing the work of a parent by paying or receiving the child support.

 

[czygvtwkr]

You know I always thought of you as a wacko liberal but I was wrong. The truth is you are a right wing religious zelot that either doesn't know it or refuses to accept the fact.

When you said the government protects adulterers what would you have them done publicly whipped or a good ole honor killing?

 

[hvp05]

A baby means that God has blessed the union

So? You, in your typical hypocritical fashion, have repeatedly opposed your own God and faith - as I pointed out in this post to which you are too afraid to respond.

Taking care of their own children by their own standards and do not let the big daddy gov be telling then what to pay

Uh, read what I said again, as slowly as you feel comfortable. Even if all child support laws were repealed most parents would continue to pay their share to help raise their children because most people have some sense of responsibility. And you would still consider them weak and ignorant, right?

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

You know I always thought of you as a wacko liberal but I was wrong. The truth is you are a right wing religious zelot that either doesn't know it or refuses to accept the fact.

Of course I know that and I do accept it.

In fact I am pleased that some one has finally reccognized it and said so here.

My religious disciplines have been very powerful to me and for me and with me, thank God.

When you said the government protects adulterers what would you have them done publicly whipped or a good ole honor killing?

When I say "adulterer" then I mean the outsider that violates or adulterates the family unit.

The parent or spouse or mate is not the true adulterer, it is the person from outside the family that violates the married person.

And in that case we could create some hard laws that protect any family member from an immoral violation by an adulterer.

It could be done by harsh fines and jail time and worse for repeat adulterers.

When President Clinton was violated by that woman then Mrs. Clinton saw who the real criminal home wrecker was and stood by her man,

that is the reason we loved Mrs. Clinton then and many stand by her today because we saw.

That woman really was the criminal adulteress that violated their family.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Hmm sounds like you cheated on your wife and you refuse to accept responsibility for it.

If someone who is married has an affair with an unmarried person it is the married persons fault, they are the one who took a vow.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

So? You, in your typical hypocritical fashion, have repeatedly opposed your own God and faith - as I pointed out in this post to which you are too afraid to respond.

I guess you are correct that I did ignore your question and it is just that I find your post hard to stomach.

You seem to be more aware than others here and so you post things particularly to get at me, so I have noticed and I go on by, but now maybe I will change my way again.

So yes, I definately accept and believe that I am and that I have reaped what I have sown.

But my God gives punishments that when accepted make the person better.
God's punishments makes us better.

Asking if I would be a success is proof that God is for me or against me is not my criteria.
I find that God is for me in many ways and not in other ways.

Like I am running for election because I feel that is the right thing for me to do whether I win the election or not. Like John the Baptist that decried the Ruler and got his head cut off, and Jesus got nailed to a cross, so then winning is not everything. It is reasonable for any person that wants to do right and to agressively preach right will eventually be sacrificed in one way or another and that is what I seek - my destiny - win or loose.

Plus you asked if I could hold a gun and I use to have guns many years ago but my hands are now messed up and it would be hard to hold a gun and even harder to fire a weapon. But I do not believe in me doing violence anymore, and if I did then I certainly would not concider it on such a small scale as that.

Uh, read what I said again, as slowly as you feel comfortable. Even if all child support laws were repealed most parents would continue to pay their share to help raise their children because most people have some sense of responsibility. And you would still consider them weak and ignorant, right?

Yes, I missed that part, so I would say with full confidence that if the gov gets out of the family break up business that the gov is doing now then the parents will indeed take full care of all the children and we would all be much better off.

But if you are saying that the parents would keep sending some $500 a month (or any set amount) as the gov child support ordered to the custodial instead of factually taking personal care of their own children then I would say no way in hell would that ever happen.

 

[hvp05]

Hmm sounds like you cheated on your wife and you refuse to accept responsibility for it.

No; fortunately, I doubt there ever has been a second woman to find JPC attractive. The one was bad enough.

The person he's referring to is the man his wife met after he (JPC) deserted his family. Since JPC does not consider their marriage as ever truly ending, the new man was an "outsider" and "adulterer". Of course, this evil man was also the one who was brave enough to actually support JPC's shattered family and raise Jimmy Jr. ... which probably makes Jimmy Sr. hate him even more.

 

[czygvtwkr]

No; fortunately, I doubt there ever has been a second woman to find JPC attractive. The one was bad enough.

The person he's referring to is the man his wife met after he (JPC) deserted his family. Since JPC does not consider their marriage as ever truly ending, the new man was an "outsider" and "adulterer". Of course, this evil man was also the one who was brave enough to actually support JPC's shattered family and raise Jimmy Jr. ... which probably makes Jimmy Sr. hate him even more.

I bet he had a bigger weiner than JPC too.

 

[hvp05]

I bet he had a bigger brain than JPC too.

:fixed:

No doubt.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Hmm sounds like you cheated on your wife and you refuse to accept responsibility for it.

I do not see why it is always turned into some personal affront.

My beliefs are based on my religion. I have been in relationships where I have cheated and where I have been cheated on, and I do know the pain and the harm done by adultery and we need to make it unaccetable in our society.

If someone who is married has an affair with an unmarried person it is the married persons fault, they are the one who took a vow.

That is the way it is deemed now and it is backwards.

We need to protect and defend the marriage and the family unit.

The adulterer comes from outside the marriage and breaks up the family, that therefore has got to be the true criminal or else as it is now that married persons and parents are just the prey and sport for the outsider that will adulterate any family without any consiquences.

It is like a social agreement that married persons must be off limits.

Like it takes a village to raise a child - it also takes a village to protect a marriage.