Child support as USA politics

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:34 pm

First topic message reminder :

I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link HERE.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:11 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
african americans seem to go to jail more than any other race because they are not able to conform to laws as well as others....it's just that simple.
The true Oz emerges.
The "true Oz" has always been obvious

To those who see clearly, yes. Note highlighted text.

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:21 pm

Jack,

I’m Black. All one need do to determine that fact is ask. Smokey says it better than I.

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:35 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
I refer to them...

If you don't like their monikers, I'd suggest you take it up with them. They're the ones who insist on their skin color and heritage being recognized as part of their cultural identity.

The true Oz continues to emerge.

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:41 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
How about we go one further...maybe it's because the Africans might well be the least "domesticated" of all the races, with the possible exception of arabs. After all, real Africans still live in the bush and shanty towns...reproducing like cockroaches. Pick any predominantly "black" city anywhere on the planet and it's crime rates are greater than "white" cities and it's standard of living is lower... Shanty town culture is something blacks bring with them wherever they settle, anywhere around the globe.

Read and know the true Oz by his own words.

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:45 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
Our African Americans are always trying to bling up the lingo....

Oz continues to reveal himself.

by jstnay Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:50 pm

I was told about him, his true self up until this point had not shown up.

Now I know, and am truly unimpressed.

by jackthelad Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:52 pm

Thanks for that Rock, you can't argue with Smokey. Smile

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:57 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Read carefully:

“Given the fact that both Canada and Australia styled their simultaneous sovereignty federal governments from the US model…”

True Blue wrote:
Yes my bad... lack of sleep is my excuse; something I have since resolved.

I have looked into this claim of yours and am not satisfied that you are correct. So far as Australian History is concerned, the constitutions of GB, USA, Canada and Switzerland were studied before forming our own. Elements of those constitutions as well as our own unique take on the matter played a role in the creation of the Australian Constitution.

I understand how you can come to think that the Australian Constitution seems connected to American Federalism, however, if it is viewed in context with 'Responsible Government' which is a Westminster concept, you will come to appreciate that looks are deceptive and that our legislative and executive branch are united, unlike that of the USA which is separated.

I also took a look at Canadian Confederacy and again am not satisfied that you are correct.

You are looking at the horizontal structure of the representative democracy rathe than the simultaneous sovereignty of the representative democracies.

Within the jurisdictional boundaries of Australia there are seven sovereign entities with seven sovereign governments. Within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States of America there are fifty-one sovereign entities with fifty-one sovereign governments. Each of these fifty-eight sovereign governments is a sovereign republic co-owned by We the People of each sovereign entity.

Do you see the almost perfect parallel? Do you notice that US separation-of-powers (executive, legislative, judicial) and the Australian Westminster system are not being compared?

By he way, if indeed your national sand state systems of government are called a constitutional monarchies, they are nonetheless de facto republics. In fact, your seven sovereign governments echo our fifty-one sovereign governments in two of three crucial aspects.

True Blue wrote:
… I am most appreciative of the fact that you pushed the envelope on this as it caused me to study the matter in detail and learn more of the history of my country. I have many gaps in my learning and you had hit upon one causing me to rectify that. Therefore purpose of my being on forums has been satisfied yet again.

Thank you.

RockOnBrother wrote:
over punitive-ness (if it’s not, it ought to be a word).

True Blue wrote:
Too messy... try 'overly punitive'.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Meanwhile, as I’ve said, it ought to be a word.
Perhaps we Texans will create it; if you’re nice, we’ll share it with y’all.

True Blue wrote:
It should never be a word... it sounds messy and ugly when spoken IMO. And I doubt it would be something Australians would be inclined towards... From our perspective why use complex words when the simple variants would suffice? Australians also have a habit of using the least amount of syllables possible... so your addition of a suffix would fail on that account also in Oz. (A sad reality, given the exceptional abilities of the English language to express the nuance of thought and feeling.)

I use complex words to precisely express complex nuances. The phrase “overly punitive” and “over punitiveness”, though similar, are not equivalent.

Example: The Texas Justice System in the 1970s was overly punitive towards drug addicts. The Texas Justice System in the 1970s was over punitiveness towards drug addicts. If the phrases were equivalent, the second sentence would work.

The English language lacks that exceptional ability for which you give it credit. “New Testament” Greek has at least four nuanced words which are translated into English as “love.” Think about it; if one uses love in “I love my wife” in the same as one uses love in “I love my students”, then one might soon be doing one’s loving from behind bars.

RockOnBrother wrote:
On those last two, we can go a few rounds if you wish, mate.

True Blue wrote:
OK... I'll let you start a new thread and I'll be back latter to attend to it.

RockOnBrother wrote:
No you won’t. If you’re ready to rock and roll, start the thread.

True Blue wrote:
You invite me to debate and you decide the topic of debate but refuse to open that debate as per the demands of common courtesy! How extraordinary! To say that I am profoundly affronted by your ill kept affectation, would be an overstatement writ large and bold.

You identified the topics in your previous post in which you listed certain items. From your list, I’ve identified the two topics which I’ll discuss with you. If you want to tell me here which topic you want to discuss first, I’ll be happy to start a thread.

Now the ball’s back in your court.

True Blue wrote:
I cannot help but think however that you are most worthy as a sparing partner in debate…

You’re pretty good yourself.

True Blue wrote:
… assume the slight to be a means of hiding your lack of confidence that is necessary for initiating debate…

In the inimitable words of Bugs Q. Bunny, “He don’t know me very well, do he?”

True Blue wrote:
… and accept the responsibility of initiating such proceedings as my own.

As you should. As I said, if you wish, you identify which of the two topics you desire to discuss, and I’ll start the thread.

by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:11 pm

Jack,

No prob.

by jackthelad Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:14 pm

Oz says
How about we go one further...maybe it's because the Africans might well be the least "domesticated" of all the races,

Well, i will not go in to numbers, but after over a hundred years of slavery, the African Americans, should be domesticated. It doesn't take a deal of whipping to bring someone to heel. After battering the red man into submission, they called them tame Indians, they don't have freedom, like they use to have, penned in, in Indian reservation. I don't think much has changed for the American indian, we have yet to see Chief Sitting Bulls great great great grandson become chief of the American nation.

by JP Cusick Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:30 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

lessening the impact of being a felon upon job opportunities, etc. lessens the impact of the effectiveness of the punishment of being a criminal in the first place. one of the most basic ideas of law and punishment is that there are consequences to being a criminal....if you lessen the consequences, then you lessen the deterent factor for becoming a criminal.

There is some truth in that for criminals, but the Child Support and Custody laws do that to parents, and it is done to parents for being too poor to pay the demands, and there is no real crime including that there is no victim, and the parents are turned into criminals and parenting is turned into a crime when the parents have done nothing wrong.

The laws put parents into jails and then the parents lose their jobs, lose their housing, lose their vehicles, and then the law demands more money as Child Support which can not be paid.

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

african americans seem to go to jail more than any other race because they are not able to conform to laws as well as others....it's just that simple.

That is not correct.

The African Americans go to prison because of white laws and white enforcement and white persecution.

In a way you are correct that the African Americans do not conform to the white laws, but the reason for it is because the laws hold them down and they know the laws are prejudiced as are the Courts and the prisons.

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

regarding abortion....liberals/democrats most certainly agree with eugenics so I'm confused as to the issue of Reagan and abortion. Planned Parenthood was instituted to rid America of the poor and ignorant blacks before they became a welfare caste and burden on society as a whole....Planned Parenthood is a sacred cow of liberalism in America. Are you sure that you are a Democrat?

I am a Democrat but I do not like everything that other Democrats promote.

I see myself as like a conservative Democrat, but I emphasize that I really am a "compassionate conservative" and far from being a Republican.

I am against abortion, but I say first we have to stop attacking parents for being parents through the evil and inhuman Child Support and Custody laws, because it is absurd to say we do not want abortions and then attack the same parents if they do have their baby.

The parents are criticized if they do and trashed if they do not.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:51 pm

jackthelad wrote:Oz says
How about we go one further...maybe it's because the Africans might well be the least "domesticated" of all the races,

Well, i will not go in to numbers, but after over a hundred years of slavery, the African Americans, should be domesticated. It doesn't take a deal of whipping to bring someone to heel. After battering the red man into submission, they called them tame Indians, they don't have freedom, like they use to have, penned in, in Indian reservation. I don't think much has changed for the American indian, we have yet to see Chief Sitting Bulls great great great grandson become chief of the American nation.

I'm fairly amused that you take "domesticated" as to mean "submissive" than "not wild". Africans, by and large, have not had much success in terms of bringing the population to civilization other than any 3rd world definitions. Where Europeans have millenia trying to become "civilized", the African continent still remains "The Dark Continent" not for the color of its people but because it's still stuck in the Dark Ages in terms of social evolution. There were times, in antiquity, that African cities were well thought of around the developed world (ie Alexandria) but, by and large, the great leaps in social evolution were not African.

Show me the African cities of the Age of Enlightenment, the architecture of structures and cities rivaling the Italians, French or English. Show me the scholarly works, advances in medicine, mechanical engineering or other such disciplines for which we have Africans to thank for leading the way or setting the pace. The evolution of Democracy was certainly an African juggernaut, n'est pas?

Africans have ALWAYS trailed Europeans in social evolution...this is nothing new. The evidence is only before the world's very eyes: compare the African continent, its peoples, governments, technological advancements and any other measurable tidbit with those of any European culture...they are like children in a world of adults.

One thing Africans lead the world in without any "oppression" by the white man....rape.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:56 pm

"That is not correct.

The African Americans go to prison because of white laws and white enforcement and white persecution.

In a way you are correct that the African Americans do not conform to the white laws, but the reason for it is because the laws hold them down and they know the laws are prejudiced as are the Courts and the prisons." ~ JP

If Africans want to live under African law, then let them live in Africa. If they want to live in the United States, then the laws of the United States are the laws with which the MUST comply or be criminals. It is THAT simple. The United States is not Africa....and there are no slaves here against their will. The United States laws reflect social evolution for which Africans have shown no affinity....that does not make them bad laws, it only makes Africans unevolved.

*edited to add the legendary eschewment of African males for child support, in any fashion, to remain on topic*

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:00 am

Child support as USA politics - Page 6 _africa_night_satellite

The Dark Continent, indeed.

by jstnay Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:08 am

One thing Africans lead the world in without any "oppression" by the white man....rape.

You are a POS and Shirina can ban me for saying so if she desires.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:13 am

jstnay wrote:
One thing Africans lead the world in without any "oppression" by the white man....rape.
You are a POS and Shirina can ban me for saying so if she desires.

I'm going to assume that you really, truly are unaware of the rape epidemic spanning the whole of Africa at this very moment and has been going on for many, many years. The Congo is, literally, the rape capital of the world.

I don't want Shirina to ban you....I want you to LEARN something.

*crosses fingers, hopes for the best*

by jstnay Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:19 am

I don't want Shirina to ban you....I want you to LEARN something

You couldn't teach me anything if your life depended on it.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:23 am

jstnay wrote:
I don't want Shirina to ban you....I want you to LEARN something
You couldn't teach me anything if your life depended on it.

Wallow in your ignorance then...it's not really my problem. Are you seriously contending that Africans do NOT lead the world in rape? Really? It must be an ostrich/sand thing then...

I seem to remember reading an article that stated that more rapes happen in Africa than the rest of the world combined, with exceptions for countries like China (where no data is available) and Muslim countries (where rape has its own, insane definitions...google "woman must marry rapist to get out of jail for adultery). I have no resource for it and am simply too lazy to google it now...maybe you can?

by jstnay Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:38 am

I don't want Shirina to ban you

She doesn't have to, I'm out of here. I can't stand being around racists.

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:45 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

I'm going to assume that you really, truly are unaware of the rape epidemic spanning the whole of Africa at this very moment and has been going on for many, many years. The Congo is, literally, the rape capital of the world.

I don't want Shirina to ban you....I want you to LEARN something.

I do not want him to be banned either since it is your racist provocation going on here.

And you make such obnoxious claims with nothing to support the claims.

But assuming your claims are accurate - then we still have to equate the reality that the entire continent of Africa was raped by the white conquistadors.

The white raiders took away the most healthy persons away from the African people to be slaves in the Americas, and we whites destroyed the African social structure, we destroyed their families, and stole their resources and exploited their entire continent to serve the white racist greed.

So if the turmoil in Africa is as you claim then truly we whites are the root cause, and NOT the Africans' own doing.

It is like you throwing rocks at a person and then you insulting the person for bleeding.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:55 am

JP...

conquistors went to the Americas, not Africa. therefore, Africa was not "raped" by white conquistadors.

regarding the slave trade in the days of the early United States....it was Africans who sold off other Africans to "the white man"; the white man didn't rape or pillage Africa for slaves. the slavers were mostly Africans who conquered or captured rivals and sold them as slaves rather than kill them. THAT is the undeniable truth of the slave trade of that era.

out of control black on black violence is really nothing new; I'm sorry you've bought into that whole "white man's guilt" trip...I guess you're not too concerned with the actual facts of history but just gobble up the dupery goo spoon fed to you by liberal antagonists.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:58 am

jstnay wrote:
I don't want Shirina to ban you
She doesn't have to, I'm out of here. I can't stand being around racists.

stating facts objectively is NOT racist...if you had any credibility, you'd DISPROVE my statements. your problem is that you can't....because they are true.

in all honesty, I'd say blacks aren't doing all that bad adapting considering that they are no more than 12-15 generations from literally living in the bush, depending on whether you set the age for reproduction between 15 and 20, respectively. they seem to still be lacking in hockey skillz though...

Oz. Your account will be suspended for one day while the Moderators consider if further action is required. Ivan

by astra Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:27 am

So if the turmoil in Africa is as you claim then truly we whites are the root cause, and NOT the Africans' own doing.

It is like you throwing rocks at a person and then you insulting the person for bleeding.

Go to Bristol, Liverpool Whitehaven, indeed any port in England (Scottish registered ships and Captains were not at first allowed to carry slaves!

The sailors on arrival at the coast of Africa were well out of condition after a long voyage and had no hope of catching the fleet of foot Africans. It was the African chiefs selling off conquered enemys and any one else for valuables (to them - trinkets to the Captains)

Look at the Horn of Africa, still in the C21, selling slaves to the Arab countries, where a black slave is a prize to boast about in company and to despise in private. Don't hear anyone but OZ bring this up! Africa is SOOOOOOOO civilised!

Slavery, female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation, starvation, thirst and the most prevalent aids epidemic in the world! (OH yes and, AND African men in Niger, believe that if they rape a baby girl 6 months old or there abouts, their aids will be cured.) check with Medicines Sans Frontiers coz I aint reading it again!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/1362134/South-African-men-rape-babies-as-cure-for-Aids.html
"THE alleged rape of a nine-month-old baby girl by six men in a remote part of rural South Africa last week has focused the nation on"

"A bizarre belief among many African black men that sex with a virgin -- even a child or baby -- can cure HIV/AIDS is fueling what is already one of the highest child sexual exploitation rates in the world. "

Read more: Child-rape epidemic
in South Africa http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=12139#ixzz1f9H00cUN

eeeeeyup!

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:30 am

astra wrote:

The sailors on arrival at the coast of Africa were well out of condition after a long voyage and had no hope of catching the fleet of foot Africans. It was the African chiefs selling off conquered enemys and any one else for valuables (to them - trinkets to the Captains)

The white folk were always too tired to do the work, and it was the same on the Plantations too, in that the whites took the credit while the Africans did the work.

It is true that African in Africa did help in the slave business, but the whites had the guns and the chains and the whites had their Christianity too.

The thing is that the Africans helped and worked for the whites in everything, and the Africans saw themselves as partners and comrades with the whites, but the whites was never to be trusted, as the whites are racist and no matter how loyal or friendly or hard working the African was then the whites forever viewed them as inferior.

The black Women would even make babies with the white men, but the whites would sell their own children into the slavery, because the whites were being inhuman.

And the slavery in Africa by Africans was NOT racially based, but the African brought to the Americas were racially enslaved, and the whites were far more cruel and inhuman against the Africans, and the Africans could not understand that the whites could not be pacified or befriended or satisfied.

Why did not the whites pick their own cotton? because the whites were too "out of condition" to do their own work.

by Shirina Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:51 am

The African Americans go to prison because of white laws and white enforcement and white persecution.

Could you explain to me how laws against murder, rape, armed assault, robbery, drug use, and breaking and entering are "white" laws? Would blacks allow these crimes to occur in their own society if not for "white persecution?" There are plenty of black cops, black lawyers, black judges, and black jurors, thus claiming reverse racism is a bit of a stretch. It used to be that way, but now the age old clarion cry of "racism!" and persecution are being used as a crutch. With a black man sitting at the Big Desk in the Oval Office, there's just no excuse for excuses any longer. A crime is a crime, and if the person is guilty, I don't care what his ethnicity, he deserves punishment. Even if ... IF ... the US law enforcement agencies target black criminals more than white ones, that does not change the fact that a crime was committed; a "race card" and a "get out of jail free" card are NOT the same things. A black rapist cannot say, "Well, the police should've been out looking for white rapists instead of coming after me!"

by Guest Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:37 am

Shirina wrote:
Could you explain to me how laws against murder, rape, armed assault, robbery, drug use, and breaking and entering are "white" laws?

Regarding “how laws against murder, rape, armed assault, robbery, drug use, and breaking and entering are ‘white’ laws”, this data might provide a clue:

DNA Exonerations since 2000, by ethnicity
Category Number Percent
Black (African American) 159 59.55%
White (Caucasian) 80 29.96%
Latino 21 7.87%
Asian American 2 0.75%
Unknown/Mixed Race 5 1.87%
Total 267 100.00%
Source: 11 Facts About Wrongful Incarcerations
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-wrongful-imprisonment

The numbers speak precisely, the numbers speak loudly, the numbers speak clearly, the numbers speak non-negotiably (ought to be a word), the numbers evidence a pattern of wrongful and unjust incarcerations of innocent Black Americans, by and large innocent Black American males, by state injustice systems throughout the United States of America.

(Anyone who wishes to click the “Quote” button and properly format the data, please do so.)

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:21 pm

True Blue wrote:

Why don't they use welfare or wage garnishment instead of prison in the US? Too humane perhaps?

In the USA they do use every means possible to forcibly collect every penny of the Child Support demands, and that enforcement just overflows as it garnishes and steals and extorts and then it also incarcerates and demonize and persecutes the parents.

Being "humane" would be to leave the 2 parents alone to raise their own children but that is not done.

by jackthelad Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:01 pm

Oz says,
I'm fairly amused that you take "domesticated" as to mean "submissive" than "not wild".

Do you mean fairly as in fair, or, fairly as nearly.

Cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, geese and ducks are domesticated, have been known to go wild occasionally.
Off, course people who are taken into slavery and beaten on a regular basis will be come submissive, but like a dog, occasionally will bite back.
I am not amused, or fairly amused that i am corresponding with an out and out racist, not going to harp on it though.Never been a one to believe a leopard can change it's spots.

by True Blue Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:45 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
True Blue wrote:

Why don't they use welfare or wage garnishment instead of prison in the US? Too humane perhaps?

In the USA they do use every means possible to forcibly collect every penny of the Child Support demands, and that enforcement just overflows as it garnishes and steals and extorts and then it also incarcerates and demonize and persecutes the parents.

Being "humane" would be to leave the 2 parents alone to raise their own children but that is not done.

You are so terribly concerned about the non custodial parent having to pay child support as though it should not be a duty of that parent. Why is that?

by astra Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:01 pm

It is true that African in Africa did help in the slave business, but the whites had the guns and the chains and the whites had their Christianity too.

The thing is that the Africans helped and worked for the whites in everything, and the Africans saw themselves as partners and comrades with the whites, but the whites was never to be trusted, as the whites are racist and no matter how loyal or friendly or hard working the African was then the whites forever viewed them as inferior.

#1 what good were guns? shoot an African and don't get paid!

#2 It was NOT racism that was on the go in the 17C ! the blooming expression had NOT been conjoured up yet IN AMERICA!

#3 You need to look at the Highland Clearances in Scotland about the same time! This was white man beating down white men! This was Christian against Christian, this was Government mistreating its own subjects only who live 800 miles from Parliament! There is a well acclaimed book by John Prebble on the subject, I commend you to get a copy from Amazon.

#4 Slave girls and Women were commonly used USED by the plantation owners and overeers for sport! (This commonly happened in Scotland by the English Redcoat Soldiers on the Scottish females. See the story of Rob Roy's wife being raped openly in front of the dragoons!)

#5 What we are talking about happened in different times. To see it happen now in a continent that stays in it's own time warp is disturbing. What is even more disturbing is the attitude of some who wish to white wash over the events and place them on the back shelf. Those who go into learned cousellor voice and mode are the worst! Just talk about it, as brushing it out of sight is getting those poor souls nowhere!

by Shirina Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:16 pm

the numbers evidence a pattern of wrongful and unjust incarcerations of innocent Black Americans

The numbers you provide do not prove your assertion, Rock. Your facts are correct, but your interpretation of them are just that - an interpretation. Without meticulously reviewing those 159 cases, there's no way to know from those raw statistics why there are more wrongfully accused black Americans. Immediately assuming racism is the cause is a fallacious leap of logic.

by Guest Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:52 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
… the numbers evidence a pattern of wrongful and unjust incarcerations of innocent Black Americans

Shirina wrote:
The numbers you provide do not prove your assertion…

Proof is seldom claimed in research involving humans. Even as regards smoking and lung cancer, there is no proof that smoking causes lung cancer. There is a virtual Himalaya Mountain Range of correctional data that compelling suggests that smoking causes lung cancer, data that, in fact, compellingly evidence a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

Hence, since the late 1960’s, cigarette companies have been required by federal regulation to include the Surgeon General’s warning on every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States. Proof was never obtained; the compelling evidence was sufficient for sweeping, all-encompassing action by one of the fifty-one sovereign governments of the United States of America, the one whose jurisdiction coves all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and perhaps a bit more.

Once again, your statement: “The numbers you provide do not prove your assertion…”

Once again, my statement: “… the numbers evidence a pattern of wrongful and unjust incarcerations of innocent Black Americans, by and large innocent Black American males, by state injustice systems throughout the United States of America.”

Note the highlighted words.

Fact: The numbers I’ve provided evidence a pattern of wrongful and unjust incarcerations. The evidence is compelling, both quantitatively and qualitatively, supported by further facts I’ve not documented here, but which are readily available to you via Internet search.

If one chooses to cast a blind eye to the apparently systemic pattern of wrongful incarcerations of Black Americans, particularly Black American males, one has, of course, the right to do so, a Creator-endowed, unalienable/inalienable, and in the United States, a constitutionally-guaranteed right to do so. I shall join neither you nor anyone else in such casting of blind eyes; however, I shall defend y’all’s right to do so as I defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

As with cigarettes, government action, through laws and regulations enacted and enforced in all fifty-one sovereign US jurisdictions, is needed in order to address and combat the pattern, compellingly evidenced, of wrongful, unjust incarcerations of Black Americans, particularly Black American males, in the United States of America.

Shirina wrote:
Your facts are correct

Of course they are. They are gathered and published by a reliable agency from public records in a country committed to Locke-ian governments.

In fact, they are not just my facts; they are our facts, pertaining to all democracies co-owned by We the People within the boundaries of the United States, its Territories and Possessions, and accessible to anyone worldwide who has the level of unrestricted access to the Internet that we have come to expect in Locke-ian democracies.

Shirina wrote:
… your interpretation of them are just that - an interpretation.

My interpretation is not “just that”; it’s far more than “just that.” My interpretation is derived from assessment, analysis, and evaluation of pertinent data, including facts whish you’ve sated are “correct.”

Accordingly, my assessment, analysis, evaluation, and subsequent interpretation of factual data, a process performed in an environment diametrically opposite a “vacuum”, is far more than “just that.”

Shirina wrote:
Without meticulously reviewing those 159 cases, there's no way to know from those raw statistics why there are more wrongfully accused black Americans.

Fortunately, such meticulous review of this data and further data I’ve not provided, performed for decades by a numerous researchers of unchallengeable intellectual integrity, has concluded that there is and has been, for at least one hundred fifty-six years, a pattern of wrongful incarceration of Black Americans, particularly Black American males, in the United States of America.

Shirina wrote:
Immediately assuming racism is the cause is a fallacious leap of logic.

Immediate assumption that I’ve engaged in “[immediate] assumption” is erroneous.

by Shirina Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:14 pm

If one chooses to cast a blind eye to the apparently systemic pattern of wrongful incarcerations of Black Americans, particularly Black American males

If you're looking for racism, you'll find it. Not necessarily because it's present, but because you want to see it. I've heard your argument before, and while I'm certain you can provide all kinds of data to support your contention, I am equally certain I can find all kinds of contradictory data to show that your not-quite-stated-but-heavily-implied charge of racism may not be the cause. Thus it all comes down to which side we're willing to believe.

by Guest Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:10 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
If one chooses to cast a blind eye to the apparently systemic pattern of wrongful incarcerations of Black Americans, particularly Black American males

Shirina wrote:
If you're looking for racism, you'll find it.

If I’m not looking for racism, it will find me, as it has found me numerous times in my cognizant lifetime when I was looking not for it.

Shirina wrote:
Not necessarily because it's present…

Every time racism has found me, racism has been present.

Shirina wrote:
… but because you want to see it.

Never in my cognizant life have I wanted to see racism.

Shirina wrote:
I've heard your argument before…

No, you have not. You’ve allowed your virtual “ears” to hear the virtual “sounds” of my comments pertaining to racism, but you’ve yet to evidence “hearing” (comprehending, understanding) the content of my comments.

Shirina wrote:
… I'm certain you can provide all kinds of data to support your contention…

Of course you’re certain. You’ve seen quantitative and phenomenological data provided by me on the Cutting Edge forum from perhaps May 2011 until today.

Shirina wrote:
… I am equally certain I can find all kinds of contradictory data to show that your not-quite-stated-but-heavily-implied charge of racism may not be the cause.

You are free to show “all kinds of contradictory data to show that [my] not-quite-stated-but-heavily-implied charge of racism may not be the cause” hereon, if you so choose.

Shirina wrote:
Thus it all comes down to which side we're willing to believe.

No, it does not. It all comes down to what is true,

by astra Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:29 pm

phenomenological

Iffin that's not a word maybe it should be huh? Rock.

by Guest Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:59 pm

astra wrote:
phenomenological
Iffin that's not a word maybe it should be huh? Rock.

It should be and is a word, my Celtic brother in vindictiveness against those who would deprive us of our “wheels.”

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:36 pm

For years, Government policy has been to reduce the number of children residing in Poverty. British Treasury figures produced yesterday show a reversal, with an expected increase of 10% during the next five years.

They can't even get the simple things right.

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:08 pm

True Blue wrote:

You are so terribly concerned about the non custodial parent having to pay child support as though it should not be a duty of that parent. Why is that?

Raising their own children is a pride and joy of every parent (even for those who fail to realize it), but paying the Child Support is NOT a parental duty.

It would be as if I took your car away from you, and then I demand for you to pay me the money for gas and insurance and upkeep of your car which I took from you.

Of course it would be absurd to expect you to pay me if I take away your car, but under the Child Support and Custody laws the children are taken away from their parents and then claiming those parents must pay the ones who took the children - and that is also absurd and ridiculous.

When the Custodial parents wants help with raising their child then the Custodial needs to get married to the other parents as that is how a family is formed.

Any parent who takes the child(ren) away from the other parent as in taking "Custody" then they have no claim nor do they deserve one cent in Child Support.

To pay the unjust and inhuman Child Support is NOT the parent's duty - hell no, the true moral and ethical duty is to use every means reasonable to defy such evil laws.

If that does not explain it then please do ask for any further clarification as I am happy to explain, but I say this is very easy to understand as it is simply right from wrong.

by True Blue Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:48 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
True Blue wrote:

You are so terribly concerned about the non custodial parent having to pay child support as though it should not be a duty of that parent. Why is that?

Raising their own children is a pride and joy of every parent (even for those who fail to realize it), but paying the Child Support is NOT a parental duty.

And yet it is a parental duty of the custodial parent?

It would be as if I took your car away from you, and then I demand for you to pay me the money for gas and insurance and upkeep of your car which I took from you.

Of course it would be absurd to expect you to pay me if I take away your car, but under the Child Support and Custody laws the children are taken away from their parents and then claiming those parents must pay the ones who took the children - and that is also absurd and ridiculous.

Bad analogy... your children have not been taken from you. It is your partner that has separated from you. The children still exist and still need funds for their upkeep. Your argument seems to justify the financial abuse of children because the parents could not live together.

When the Custodial parents wants help with raising their child then the Custodial needs to get married to the other parents as that is how a family is formed.

That would promote an unhealthy environment for the children since it is clear that one the parents does not want to be living with the other.

Any parent who takes the child(ren) away from the other parent as in taking "Custody" then they have no claim nor do they deserve one cent in Child Support.

Does the non custodial parent in your eyes, have a right to visitation. Does the non custodial parent still have a duty to provide emotionally and spiritually for that child?

by JP Cusick Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:35 am

True Blue wrote:

And yet it is a parental duty of the custodial parent?

Bad analogy... your children have not been taken from you. It is your partner that has separated from you. The children still exist and still need funds for their upkeep. Your argument seems to justify the financial abuse of children because the parents could not live together.

That would promote an unhealthy environment for the children since it is clear that one the parents does not want to be living with the other.

Does the non custodial parent in your eyes, have a right to visitation. Does the non custodial parent still have a duty to provide emotionally and spiritually for that child?

It is the Custodial parent's duty to provide everything the child(ren) needs, and if any child goes without then that is a failure of the custody.

The whole point of having custody is that the Custodial must provide the custody in full, and if the Custodial is not capable of providing the full custody then they have no business having the custody of any child.

As to "visitation" I see that as a dirty word, as both parents are to have an unrestricted joint custody as the child's birth right.

And even more important is that providing custody means that it is a part of the job of custody that the children do grow up with a respectful and functional relationship with the other parent, so that if any child grows up bitter or resentful against the separated parent then that too is a failure of the job of custody.

The custodial parent is the one who has taken the child(ren) away from the other parent, so the job of custody includes providing the custody in full.

by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:53 am

JP Cusick wrote:
As to "visitation" I see that as a dirty word, as both parents are to have an unrestricted joint custody as the child's birth right.

JP, you’re in the ballpark, but a bit off course. It is the birthright of every child to be raised by a father and a mother if at all possible.

There are sperm donor that are not fathers, and there are egg producers/incubators that are not mothers; fathers are those who father, and mothers are those who mother.

I abhor the mindset and consequent terminology that focuses on parents’ rights. As far as I’m concerned, the only parents’ right that parents possess is the “right” to be the father or mother that God expects, period. In fact, “parents’ rights” should be replaced by “parents’ responsibilities” in our cultural terminology; perhaps if that were so, there would be fewer sperm donors and egg producers/incubators using their sons and daughters as footballs in games of one-upmanship.

Insofar as your conclusion that the child custody culture in America USV is dysfunctional, you are absolutely correct. No one speaks for the children, and they are the only ones for whom anyone should speak in custody situations.

by Sponsored content