JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Mar 20, 2012 20:30:51 GMT -5
JP"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." Taught to respect?? Funny. Kids grow up, kids see things, kids are smart. You got issues, big issues. The sentence that made me check this place out, find the thread and reply was something to the fact of you comparing a man giving a woman a car, and yet sh expects him to fill it with gas; to the have a baby and she expect him to be financially responsible for it. JP "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." Did the man not help?? Was he not there during conception. Yea,huge issues. I feel sorry and worrisome for any woman that ever involves herself with you intimately. Reading your posts, your issues with women in general really shine. The custodial parent does have more responsibilities, ya know why, because the court saw them as the more responsible adult. I dont know what else to say. Your ignorance, thou well hid amongst words, phrases and attacks, shine through very clearly. I know a lot of great dads that pay their child support, willingly, no court order as well as some great moms that do the same. If you dont like any forums "ways" of doing things or the members in it~as you said, there is always the internet. Can't fix stupid. If I ever see anywhere your name on a ballot~I will not be marking that box. Leave the judgements for the only Judge that matters. You have just given me some thing totally unexpected for me to fear which is that if I do win this April 3rd election then this forum will surely get way too active for me to keep up with it. In fact with just a few people posting onto here then I can keep up but if there were a lot of posting then I would be overwhelmed. I had not really thought of this before, and it will be a problem if that does happen. As to me comparing the Child Support with a car then I still see that as a really hard hitting comparison since it does expressly demonstrate how the Child Support is a complete fundamental fraud. And teaching the children to respect both of their parents is the job of custody - well yes of course it is. As to judging it is our job to judge rightfully - John 7:24 - and it is only the guilty person(s) who do not want to be rightly judged.
|
|
|
Post by citygirl on Mar 22, 2012 8:54:12 GMT -5
You have just given me some thing totally unexpected for me to fear which is that if I do win this April 3rd election then this forum will surely get way too active for me to keep up with it. In fact with just a few people posting onto here then I can keep up but if there were a lot of posting then I would be overwhelmed. I had not really thought of this before, and it will be a problem if that does happen. April 3rd you'll have nothing to fear because you'll be history.
|
|
|
Post by bookworm on Mar 25, 2012 22:06:37 GMT -5
You have just given me some thing totally unexpected for me to fear which is that if I do win this April 3rd election then this forum will surely get way too active for me to keep up with it. In fact with just a few people posting onto here then I can keep up but if there were a lot of posting then I would be overwhelmed. I had not really thought of this before, and it will be a problem if that does happen. Oh, then you just suspend new memberships and posting until after your term is over. Put an announcement on the front page that you will respond to your constituents via private means rather than over a public forum.
|
|
|
Post by bookworm on Mar 25, 2012 22:22:00 GMT -5
As to me comparing the Child Support with a car then I still see that as a really hard hitting comparison since it does expressly demonstrate how the Child Support is a complete fundamental fraud. But if you give a woman a new car, you would have to pay taxes on that car, wouldn't you? There would be certain responsibilities tied to the purchase of the vehicle that would be yours, even if you gave it away. You wouldn't expect the woman to make the car payments, would you? Or maybe you would, as soon as she had possession of the car? Of course, I'm not even sure that "the gift of a car" is analogous to "the birth of a child." A father and mother share the genetic creation of the child in a 50/50 manner. A mother gives a child to a father in the same way as a father gives a child to a mother. Both parents are needed, and therefore both parents share in the responsibility. If the parents stop living with each other, they still BOTH need to maintain their financial responsibilities to support the child.
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Mar 26, 2012 8:47:56 GMT -5
Oh, then you just suspend new memberships and posting until after your term is over. Put an announcement on the front page that you will respond to your constituents via private means rather than over a public forum. That makes sense but this April 3rd election is only the primary so if I win this then I have to run an even bigger campaign for the General election coming November 2012. And I want very few private communications as I want every thing within the public view as like on the forum. But if you give a woman a new car, you would have to pay taxes on that car, wouldn't you? There would be certain responsibilities tied to the purchase of the vehicle that would be yours, even if you gave it away. You wouldn't expect the woman to make the car payments, would you? Or maybe you would, as soon as she had possession of the car? Of course, I'm not even sure that "the gift of a car" is analogous to "the birth of a child." A father and mother share the genetic creation of the child in a 50/50 manner. A mother gives a child to a father in the same way as a father gives a child to a mother. Both parents are needed, and therefore both parents share in the responsibility. If the parents stop living with each other, they still BOTH need to maintain their financial responsibilities to support the child. That is an excellent point about the new car having car payments as you got me with that one. But a new baby does not have required payments per month like a new car and my point was simply about the upkeep, as in feeding the baby or putting gasoline into the car. My bigger point is that the car is seen as valuable as in people want to be given a new car (not buy or pay for a new car) as like Oprah gave away a bunch of new cars to her entire audience and they were all very happy about getting a free car and no one would dream of complaining about having to buy insurance or about putting gas into their newly given car. With Child Support the Custodial is pretending that feeding, housing, and etc., of their own baby is a burden, and the other parent has to pay the c/s as damages and as punishment for doing some thing wrong when they did nothing wrong. The parent who has the custody of their child is the one who won as they got the better side of the deal as the custodial got the blessed baby / child, while it is the other parent who gets trashed as the other parent has lost their child.
|
|
|
Post by thunderclapp on Mar 26, 2012 8:58:26 GMT -5
Of course, I'm not even sure that "the gift of a car" is analogous to "the birth of a child." A father and mother share the genetic creation of the child in a 50/50 manner. A mother gives a child to a father in the same way as a father gives a child to a mother. Both parents are needed, and therefore both parents share in the responsibility. If the parents stop living with each other, they still BOTH need to maintain their financial responsibilities to support the child. This is how the car analogy works: You could just “discard the car (child) and be done with it” , leave the car (child) with your wife, make no payments at all, skip around the country for a few years (in a car of your own maybe?), then come back and ask your mommy to go to bat for you and get the bank to write off the debt as uncollectable. “Once I wanted to take my young 4 year old son to a movie and his Mom said "no", and so I knew my role and my power as the father and Dad was gone and I never asked such a thing ever again.” And that meant that I could no longer visit or see my son. It is because a man is not a "friend" to our children, we are not twice a month visitors for our children, we are either Dad and father or else we take nothing and discard the child(ren) to the mother and be done with it. JP Cusick as "Booky" www.cyberrecovery.net/forums/showpost.php?p=119961&postcount=2“:roll: After years of paying child support and not paying some times, and my son turned 18, then I was still behind by some $27,000. arrears of c/s and my mother asked the so-called custodial to forgive the debt. Then the custodial went to the c/s enforcement office and closed my child support case. There was no public assistance. :arrow: My ego would never had asked for the case to be closed but mother did it just fine. :?: It is a win - win situation because it even gives the custodials the chance to finnally do the right thing.” JP Cusick as "JPC, Sr." standyourground.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=c6eccd39390942d0d5a46d836ed2fbfe&topic=6006.msg66577#msg66577"I say we could release a huge amount of non violent prisoners and certainly release every parent in jail because of c/s, and we can fire all c/s agents and close the c/s offices Statewide, and stop the excessive luxury spending by the present Governor." jpcusickrunsagain.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/jp-for-governor-of-maryland-post-09-21-2009-0956-pm1.pdfThis is what makes it very difficult for me to see JP as a qualified spokesman for child custody and support issues. His actual stated wish is not to "reform" the child support laws, but to abolish them and fire anyone who is employed to manage or enforce them. Nothing he has ever said has given me a reason to doubt that he is only seeking revenge with the government for putting him in jail for refusal to fulfill the responsibilities that anyone with an ounce of love for their flesh and blood would perform without a second thought.
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Mar 28, 2012 7:56:58 GMT -5
This is what makes it very difficult for me to see JP as a qualified spokesman for child custody and support issues. His actual stated wish is not to "reform" the child support laws, but to abolish them and fire anyone who is employed to manage or enforce them. Nothing he has ever said has given me a reason to doubt that he is only seeking revenge with the government for putting him in jail for refusal to fulfill the responsibilities that anyone with an ounce of love for their flesh and blood would perform without a second thought. I do not like responding to this quote above but I guess that I must. So first: 1) I said to fire all of the Child Support enforcement employees when running for Governor because as the Governor then I would have that power to fire them all, but now I am running for the US Senate and as a Senator then I will not have the power to fire anyone. So "Thunder" is misapplying two different campaigns into one deception of his. 2) As to "revenge" then I do want justice and vindication would be nice, but I kind of like it that people like "Thunder" are afraid of "revenge" because they deserve to be afraid based on their ignorant wrong doings. As in the idea that me running for political office means of "revenge" is that I will get the police and the law enforcement to prosecute the Child Support thieves for their crimes against me and their crimes against our society and in that they do have a right to be afraid. But see that the fear of revenge is not that I might use a bomb or a gun but that I might use the rightful law enforcement to prosecute the Child Support thieves and that is what the fear of revenge is based on - and rightly so because they are criminal thieves. 3) Then "Thunder" claims under his own self-righteousness that parents must pay the Child Support thieves as that is an expression of the love for their flesh and blood children. And if parents do not pay the Child Support thieves then we do not love our children. His kind does base and equate love with cold hard cash whether it be honest money or stolen loot, because for his kind the money is the love, and thereby his kind are inhuman. 4) And "Thunder" claims that any loving parent would pay their so called "responsibility" (the thieving Child Support) but he knows that there are millions of parents all across the USA who are being persecuted by those evil laws, and the children are growing up with all their needs filled except that the children have one of their parents missing (mostly the fathers) while his kind continue to demand money and nothing but money which is not truly needed, and the stealing of the money makes the lives far worse then it needs to be. ==========================
|
|
|
Post by thunderclapp on Mar 28, 2012 15:17:39 GMT -5
1)So "Thunder" is misapplying two different campaigns into one deception of his. 2) ... people like "Thunder" 3) Then "Thunder"... 4) And "Thunder"... Hey, thanks for your answers. It's so nice to be paid attention to for a change. Do you remember when you used to replace people's quotes with "blah, blah, blah"? I resisted the urge. But I hold what I said as "accurate and true". I just can't accept you as a spokesman for any of this. We'll just forever disagree. What is it now? Six more days?
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Mar 28, 2012 17:22:24 GMT -5
Hey, thanks for your answers. It's so nice to be paid attention to for a change. Do you remember when you used to replace people's quotes with "blah, blah, blah"? I resisted the urge. But I hold what I said as "accurate and true". I just can't accept you as a spokesman for any of this. We'll just forever disagree. What is it now? Six more days? I had no idea that you felt that I might not be paying attention to you as surely I never missed anything that you posted. On one forum a Moderator got upset with me for using the "blah blah blah" see it HERE, and it is a rude thing to do - but can not they tell that I was trying to be offensive? as that is just a part of the forum game. After that I figured to leave that forum. I do not care if you accept me as such or not, because it only matters whether I win the election or if I find some other means of insistence, as I do not want your kind of acceptance and your kind of defiance is preferred to me. And I do not mean anything personal against you, as I can be friends with my enemies, and you do not have any real power. I will take it if I must but I really do not want the Child Support to bend or to flex or to compromise or to be swayed as I really want to brake it.
|
|
|
Post by thunderclapp on Mar 29, 2012 7:44:01 GMT -5
I had no idea that you felt that I might not be paying attention to you as surely I never missed anything that you posted. Again, we misunderstand each other. I was kidding about not being paid attention to, actually joking about something you wouldn't even know about me so I guess I am to blame. Every week I have 11 family members at my house for dinner and it is mass confusion with 5, going on 6 grandchildren and children all talking at the same time and I can NEVER get a work in edgewise. Talk about blah, blah, blah. ;D And yes, in a strange and twisted kind of way, we could be or are "friends", I have to admit. It's like that line in the old '70s song by Dave Mason..."We just disagree"
|
|