JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jun 5, 2011 16:48:59 GMT -5
Well I must report that I am being rejected at another Internet discussion forum called the " Single Family Voices". I was really nice and polite and respectful but the people there were intolerant bigots with their own agenda. Of course the "Moderator Mommy" was a control freak who can not take anything against her own pompous ideals. The board will show a few of my postings, but "MOMMY" there moved my own thread about reforming the Child Support into a so-called "private forum" were only registered members can read it. There is no lacking of cry baby custodial parents in that place, and their only cry is just different versions in that they can not get more and more cash loot stolen from their children's other parent. But the thing that truly got me onto their hit-list was that I told one of the baby-mommas that she needs to quit wasting her money and respect the decisions of her baby's father. By God that was it - telling them that the Child Support money is not to be wasted was too much in itself, but telling them to respect the father went beyond their limits. And I mean all of them too and not just the control freak Moderator-Mommy, because she said it was a "support forum" which support means we have to agree with any ignorant or perverted thing which any Custodial parent might dish out. So I move on again
|
|
|
Post by thelaw on Jun 6, 2011 9:48:38 GMT -5
You got (censored) banned from another forum you (censored).
As if anyone is gonna put up with your (censored).
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Jun 7, 2011 8:38:32 GMT -5
You were "really nice and polite and respectful" except you tell'em that child support is unjust thieves.
|
|
|
Post by citygirl on Jun 11, 2011 10:35:28 GMT -5
But the thing that truly got me onto their hit-list was that I told one of the baby-mommas that she needs to quit wasting her money and respect the decisions of her baby's father. If the father pays his child support responsibility then he'll get all kinds of respect.
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jun 13, 2011 8:38:32 GMT -5
If the father pays his child support responsibility then he'll get all kinds of respect. When the respect can be bought-or-sold then that kind of "respect" is not worth having. What I suggest is a far higher level of parental responsibility rather then compliance of intrusive Court orders.
|
|
childsupportadvocate
Guest
|
Post by childsupportadvocate on Jul 21, 2011 20:54:14 GMT -5
Here is the "truth". It is hard for single parents to respect, or take seriously a "candidates" views, when said candidate has been convicted of not paying child support, and vandalizing property. All verifiable by doing a simple google on your name. Men cannot, nor women for that matter, have children and then decide they are not responsible financially. There is something completely morally wrong with that. I was in SFV, and am a member, and found that in fact you were not respectful. What happened was that you were rude and caused unneeded disruption and stress to single parents who work hard to put food in their kids mouth every week. You know something, I was married to a guy that beat me, abused his daughter and then decided he could just up and not support her at all. Where is the justice in that? When I married him, I did not know he would be abusive. I did not know he would abuse my daughter. I did not know that he would not provide for my daughter. Marriage is like a contract. He breached his. And that makes him liable for damages. When a man and a woman, lay down in a bed and make a baby, it is like making a contract. In most cases (minus rape or incest), both are consenting, they know what can happen. Each has a duty to the other, each has a benefit from each other. Either of which, a breach means some kind of remedy. It's basic contractual law actually. Common sense. Yet your "plan" does nothing to acknowledge that. Nothing at all. It's not even viable. And would leave so many more children in poverty. I live in poverty every single day. I get no help from my ex. right now, I am basically homeless. If it weren't for parents who own their home and have room for me and my daughter, I would be up a creek. I can't find a job. In the meantime, my ex has a job and an income and a roof over his head.... but I see none of it, despite the order. Tell me, how does that work in your theory?
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jul 22, 2011 9:42:59 GMT -5
Here is the "truth". It is hard for single parents to respect, or take seriously a "candidates" views, when said candidate has been convicted of not paying child support, and vandalizing property. All verifiable by doing a simple google on your name. Apparently on that forum you guys and gals have a hard time respecting anybody. That was my point on that forum when I told the single Mom to respect the wishes of their child's father, which is what got me booted off. Your forum does not respect the separated parents whether they are the Mom or the Dad or a candidate from Maryland. Men cannot, nor women for that matter, have children and then decide they are not responsible financially. There is something completely morally wrong with that. I realize some people see morality as defined by popular opinion and majority vote but I declare that the Child Support and Custody laws are NOT based on any true morality and they are immoral to the core. There is an age-old and world-wide morality that goes all through all of humanity that is called as: "Thou Shalt Not Steal". As in taking the child away from one of their parents (Custody) is stealing the child, and then taking Child Support by force is stealing money, and living off of the stolen money is immoral indeed. The claim that a parent is financially responsible to the other parent who has stolen their child(ren) is not "morality" as that is paying ransom money to a kidnapper. I was in SFV, and am a member, and found that in fact you were not respectful. What happened was that you were rude and caused unneeded disruption and stress to single parents who work hard to put food in their kids mouth every week. I have been on many Internet forums and "respect" only means no personal attacks and no dirty words, and I always post respectfully. Plus the idea that single parents are some how more sensitive and more fragile and needing a higher level of respect then the rest of humanity is because they do have a guilty conscience and deep down the single parents know they are doing wrong. Your forum and your attack-dog board Mommy defend your group NOT because they are strong but because they are weak. The unjust and inhuman Child Support and Custody laws are what makes the single parents as weak and vulnerable, while I simply expose that and I offer realistic solutions. You know something, I was married to a guy that beat me, abused his daughter and then decided he could just up and not support her at all. Where is the justice in that? When I married him, I did not know he would be abusive. I did not know he would abuse my daughter. I did not know that he would not provide for my daughter. Marriage is like a contract. He breached his. And that makes him liable for damages. When a man and a woman, lay down in a bed and make a baby, it is like making a contract. In most cases (minus rape or incest), both are consenting, they know what can happen. Each has a duty to the other, each has a benefit from each other. Either of which, a breach means some kind of remedy. It's basic contractual law actually. Common sense. Yet your "plan" does nothing to acknowledge that. Nothing at all. It's not even viable. And would leave so many more children in poverty. I live in poverty every single day. I get no help from my ex. right now, I am basically homeless. If it weren't for parents who own their home and have room for me and my daughter, I would be up a creek. I can't find a job. In the meantime, my ex has a job and an income and a roof over his head.... but I see none of it, despite the order. Tell me, how does that work in your theory? If you ex-husband is so abusive then it would make sense to let him go instead of holding onto him for Child Support payments. If you are truly broke and destitute (virtually homeless and no income) then you need to apply for Public Assistance and start taking care of your business your self. In fact the Child Support and Custody laws makes such situations worse, as in they bring in the father when the father is not healthy, and the laws do not allow the Mom to escape the abuser, and if you do start getting big money from the father when he is truly abusive as you claim - then that will make your situation far worse then to have him gone. Plus if the single Moms would stop turning to the ignorant laws when they wanted assistance - then the custodial already has the advantage by having the baby, and if you would only use your natural and God given abilities then the father would provide everything and more as a gift instead of seeking the petty Child Support cash.
|
|
|
Post by Awitness on Jul 22, 2011 14:24:37 GMT -5
What is the purpose of this forum? So you can continue your madness unfettered? You don't seem to be gathering anything that looks remotely like supporters.....but that makes sense. To you, "support" is an evil word.
What you said on SFV was that if a father chooses not to be involved his child's life then it is the mother's duty to somehow make him change his mind. If she fails to do so, then she has failed to provide for her child in the way that the term "custody" dictates she must. That's right, you feel SHE has let the child down.
Yeah, that didn't go over too well with the single parents who had had their families ripped apart because "Daddy" thought responsibility was a real drag and the whole scene was cramping his style with the little hottie up the road. So, he split.
This, btw, is the kind of decisions you suggested we should respect. ...you know, if we were too lame to convince him to change his mind.
Here's another gem you posted:
[I heard a true story before of one (1) man who had some 14 children by seven (7) different women, and of course he could not pay the Child Support and so he was denounced as a "deadbeat" and womanizer and such. But I say why would we blame and even condemn the one (1) alpha male when there were seven (7) women who were happy and even blessed with their God given children? The 7 women / mothers were not raped and it is likely that some of the mothers still loved their alpha male, so I say the laws interfering and attacking this father as if the father did wrong while the 7 mothers are deemed as innocent victims since he the alpha male impregnated all those innocent victim women is just an absurd idea.]
So, if a man goes around having unprotected sex all over the place, he is just blessing these women with the children? They should be grateful to him? He is the Alpha?
You have been watching too much Animal Planet. Heck, even animals are more caring and supportive of their offspring than you think the human male should have to be.
Sooo, all this polite and respectful banter you so generously provide has gotten you kicked off of how many forums now?
I hope someday you will be able to see how your bitterness over your own personal situation has led you to have such an incredibly warped agenda....though I suspect that the way you think may be the reason you ended up in the boat you did in the first place.
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jul 23, 2011 10:04:40 GMT -5
What is the purpose of this forum? So you can continue your madness unfettered? This forum does give anyone the opportunity to discuss the real issues unfettered. The SFV forum does not even allow posters to put in links or hyperlinks which is outrageous. We are on the Internet with an Internet forum but there one can not include and Internet link as if the members are some how protected from links. We do not want dirty words or dirty links on this forum here, and some times the Admin needs to censor a posting or a link, but that is part of the game, and it is NOT meant to censor opinions or ideas. What you said on SFV was that if a father chooses not to be involved his child's life then it is the mother's duty to somehow make him change his mind. If she fails to do so, then she has failed to provide for her child in the way that the term "custody" dictates she must. That's right, you feel SHE has let the child down. That is one of these times where you do not quote me correctly, and you do not provide a source link, and SFV has conveniently hidden the link to its forum where the discussion was made. Such tactics are never used by me. What I did say (as best as I can remember) is that it is the custodial's duty, whether the custodial is the Mom or the Dad, to provide the child(ren) with a healthy relationship with their separated parent because that is the duty of custody. As in example: even if the separated parent is gone and disappeared or remarried and unloving, then the children are still to be taught to respect and to honor their separated parent anyway as that is the duty of custody to raise the children as healthy as possible. And many people including single custodial parents might not agree with this or with me but this is a legitimate point of discussion and not a reason to be banded from the forum. Yeah, that didn't go over too well with the single parents who had had their families ripped apart because "Daddy" thought responsibility was a real drag and the whole scene was cramping his style with the little hottie up the road. So, he split. I really do believe that the Child Support and Custody laws do simply empower the spite and resentfulness as told above. It is not a matter of helping the children but an evil way of punishing the separated parents by those who have been scorned. This, btw, is the kind of decisions you suggested we should respect. ...you know, if we were too lame to convince him to change his mind. It is significant to note that I was the one suggesting that we all need to be respectful - yes I did that. Here's another gem you posted: [I heard a true story before of one (1) man who had some 14 children by seven (7) different women, and of course he could not pay the Child Support and so he was denounced as a "deadbeat" and womanizer and such. But I say why would we blame and even condemn the one (1) alpha male when there were seven (7) women who were happy and even blessed with their God given children? The 7 women / mothers were not raped and it is likely that some of the mothers still loved their alpha male, so I say the laws interfering and attacking this father as if the father did wrong while the 7 mothers are deemed as innocent victims since he the alpha male impregnated all those innocent victim women is just an absurd idea .]So, if a man goes around having unprotected sex all over the place, he is just blessing these women with the children? They should be grateful to him? He is the Alpha? You have been watching too much Animal Planet. Heck, even animals are more caring and supportive of their offspring than you think the human male should have to be. That quote is correct from me, but there was more said in other postings. And that posting of mine is no reason to be banned from a forum as this is a well worded argument and duly respectful. And if we go by morality as like from the Bible then yes children are one and all blessings from God and it is barbaric to view children as if the Mom was cursed or damaged by the Man who impregnated her. If I gave a woman a brand new car would she cry about having to put gasoline into the car? hell no, but if a Man gives a woman a brand new baby then she cries because she has to feed her own child. The car is seen as a blessing while the child is claimed to be a burden. The custodial parent is the one who has the prize by having the child, and the separated parent is the one cursed by loosing their child. That is the reality and the truth. Here is another similar report of one (1) father with 14 mothers and 23 children, linked HERE. Sooo, all this polite and respectful banter you so generously provide has gotten you kicked off of how many forums now? I have been kicked off of a lot of Internet Forums because of my teachings on the subject of Child Support and Custody laws, but never ever kicked off for me being disrespectful or being impolite. I get kicked off because other posters can not face up to my opposition, and to my information. I hope someday you will be able to see how your bitterness over your own personal situation has led you to have such an incredibly warped agenda....though I suspect that the way you think may be the reason you ended up in the boat you did in the first place. I really do see that, even though not quite in the way you seem to be presenting it. It seems to me that my troubles led me into my destiny and so here I be.
|
|
|
Post by Awitness on Jul 23, 2011 22:05:08 GMT -5
There is so much BS in the reply above that it's hard to know where to begin.
Firstly, the only kind of links that are banned at SFV are spam or obviously inappropriate material, like things you have to be over 18 to view. Spam can get you banned, and insulting other members can get you banned.
The only reason, well, there were two reasons, I didn't provide the copied quote last time was cause you had mentioned a users name in it. Yeah, I could mark that out as I did here, but the other reason was cause I am only so commited to argueing with you. Last night didn't rate all that effort. Tonight, I am more bored.
So, to clear the matter up of what exactly you really said, I give you it verbatum....
[Quite realistically it is the job of "custody" to provide all that the child needs, and the biggest need of every child is to have a functioning relationship with both of their parents being both the Mom and the Dad, as in the famous old commandment of "Honor thy father and thy mother," so if the child(ren) do not have a healthy relationship with their separated parent(s) then that is a failure of custody.
I do know that most custodials do shirk this and blame the separated parent for the failure, but "custody" means providing the child's needs.
IMO, in the case told in the quote above, then "XXXXXXX" needs to reject the claim that the father gave up his parental rights and his visitations, and then contact the father to work out arraignments to connect the son with his rightful Dad as her custodial duty.]
And, to avoid any more claims of me trying to somehow misrepresent you, this is the "quote above" you refered to:
[Quote: Originally Posted by JP Cusick A lot of parents and other persons make this complaint that the child support is not being used for the children and I think the best solution would be to allow the separated parents to spend any and all of their "child support" directly onto the children.]
To which the poster replyed:
{From what you write...this would mean that the parent paying the child support would have to be involved in the childs live.
What if that parent is not involved, such as with my situation. My ex hasn't seen our son for 6 years (my son is 7). He voluntarily gave up his parental rights and visitations. He has never sent him an Xmas or Birthday Card. He has never asked about him. Yet hates paying child support.
What then?}
At which point you said the contents of the first quote, which summerized is : Then you must reject his rejection of your child and convince him to voluntarily be all that he can be as a Dad or you have failed in your duty as custodian of that child.
Yes, you did say more...but it did nothing to make anyone feel any more warm and fuzzy towards you. When it was pointed out to you that just about all the single parents on SFV had actually beat their heads against walls and cried their eyes raw over the fact that they HAD tried against all better judgement to do exactly what you said they should... they were willing to give almost anything to have their childs other parent be an active part of their childrens lives... only to be met with hostility. To have the other parent deny paternity (and don't give me any crud about equality here, it's hard to deny maternity!) and flat out refuse to acknowledge the child in any way. And we have no problem admitting that women abandon their children to. You are the one who thinks children are gifts for women and options for men according to if they feel like taking responsibilty for their actions or not.
Which is where the insulting part came in. First, you told us it was our duty to make the man do the right thing and that if we failed then we had failed our children as parents. You actually implyed that we were shutting the father out on purpose... due to spite...which, btw, you did again in your reply to me. Once it was established that "we" wanted nothing more than to be as complete a family as possible with the father of our children but the father would not cooperate no matter what, you told us that we then needed to respect his decision to not be an active part of his childs life in any way. That he was morally and completely within his God given rights to decide he didn't want to be a parent after-all...and we should all respect and revere him cause he enabled us to have a child.
You know, we women know what an amazing miracle our children are. We know they are a gift from God...but if you are gonna go off on a tangent about it being a gift from a man...I'm gonna have to point out that we are the bearers of these children. We gladly grow them and birth them...and if anyone can be said to be going out of their way to "gift" the other participant... Get real, Man.
No, we do not in anyway feel cursed with our children, but as gifts go, we work darn hard to have this one.
Bottom line, SFV IS a support board. When you go on there and for all intents and purposes call them cry-babies (and if your gonna try to deny that one you'd better do ALOT of editing on this forum!) and tell them that they have no right to feel hurt or to feel that they have been wronged by someone who has taken part in creating a major life-altering situation, and then fled the scene...that is the antithisis of emotional support.
THAT is insulting, and that's why you were banned.
By my logic, you should be banning all the posters here except for yourself...I mean, this is a forum to promote your ideals and support your feelings and beliefs, right? But, if you banned those who vehemantly oppose what you believe, then you wouldn't have anybody left!
SFV, on the other hand, has over 5000 members...and a banned you. I guess 5000 people are crazy and you are the only sane one?
|
|