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 jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:25 pm

Shirina wrote:
On the business of it didn't cost your parents $500 a month to raise you, what if they only had a 1bedroom house, children eat non stop, they grow out of their clothes overnight. You have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are older when it didn't cost as much for anyone.

So what if they have a one bedroom house? If the couple couldn't afford a two bedroom house while they were together, why should the mother now be able to afford a two bedroom house once the couple is divorced?

As for clothing, you see, when the couple is together, they can save a truck-load of money by shopping for consignment baby clothes. Only the well-off or ignorant would keep plopping down stacks of cash to buy brand new baby clothes that, as you say, they will grow out of overnight. Everyone I know - and I do mean everyone - buys clothes for their young children from garage sales, second hand stores, e-Bay, etc. at a fraction of the cost it would be to buy clothes brand new. The courts seem to think that children of single moms deserve brand new clothes every couple of months and the poor sap who pays child support has to foot a bill he/she would probably not be paying if he/she was still married.

Yes, children eat non-stop, but they do so in small quantities. The biggest expense for parents involves wasted food that the child doesn't eat ... or won't eat. Children can be extraordinarily finicky eaters.

The point being here is that while the couple is together, they can find numerous cost-cutting ways to house, clothe, and feed their children. Any frugal family on a budget would do this. When child support payments are allocated, the courts look at an "average" cost to raise a child, and those costs are based on full retail market value. The process does NOT include taking into account all the ways parents save money by avoiding the retail price mark-up extravaganza.

Do you think it's ok for your 12 yr.old Daughter to sleep in the same room with you? I don't, no way would I subject a tween to that or myself.
When she pays child support she will just have to take that into consideration and understand she will pay more as the child gets older if he/she isn't already.

In the State I live in it is cut and dried by a formula, you don't get anywhere begging family court for more than the formula.
Many people and I belive you are one think only MEN pay child support, not true.

by jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:26 pm

Oops, you are a woman so change it to Son. LOL

by Shirina Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:35 pm

Do you think it's ok for your 12 yr.old Daughter to sleep in the same room with you? I don't, no way would I subject a tween to that or myself.

I think you're missing the point. If the couple had a one bedroom house/apartment when they were divorced, then the mother should not suddenly expect the ex to finance a two bedroom house/apartment. If they were living in a two bedroom house/apartment when the divorce took place, then it is reasonable that the mother should have a two bedroom place. I'm trying to convey the point that the mother should not be given BETTER living conditions after the divorce than she had before the divorce. Child support should not be profit for the mother, if you see what I mean.

Many people and I belive you are one think only MEN pay child support, not true.

Oh, I know that sometimes the woman pays child support, but in most places, the mother almost always wins custody of the children unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances like a history of abuse, poverty, addiction, etc. But both sides being equal, the woman will walk away with the child. That is why I typify the scenario. Besides, it's much easier writing that way - I don't have to do the he/she pronoun dance and have my post sound like a tech manual for a VCR.

Oops, you are a woman so change it to Son. LOL

Hehe, no worries, jstnay.

by jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:20 pm

Shirina wrote:
Do you think it's ok for your 12 yr.old Daughter to sleep in the same room with you? I don't, no way would I subject a tween to that or myself.

I think you're missing the point. If the couple had a one bedroom house/apartment when they were divorced, then the mother should not suddenly expect the ex to finance a two bedroom house/apartment. If they were living in a two bedroom house/apartment when the divorce took place, then it is reasonable that the mother should have a two bedroom place. I'm trying to convey the point that the mother should not be given BETTER living conditions after the divorce than she had before the divorce. Child support should not be profit for the mother, if you see what I mean.
Many people and I belive you are one think only MEN pay child support, not true.

Oh, I know that sometimes the woman pays child support, but in most places, the mother almost always wins custody of the children unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances like a history of abuse, poverty, addiction, etc. But both sides being equal, the woman will walk away with the child. That is why I typify the scenario. Besides, it's much easier writing that way - I don't have to do the he/she pronoun dance and have my post sound like a tech manual for a VCR.
Oops, you are a woman so change it to Son. LOL

Hehe, no worries, jstnay.

I only know for sure about California, here the child/children spend the same amount of time with each parent.
My daughter got a divorce, she made more than her now ex, the court ordered her to pay child support he told them he would not take it. They finally agreed no one would pay child support everyone including family court. She eventually applied for child support and got it because his wages had gone way up. He would give his life for his daughter.

by jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:27 pm

Shirina wrote:
Mr. Cusick skipped out on his child support among other things.

I think you missed this part:

"Mr. Cusick did try to cooperate but the child support enforcement was too severely corrupt. So because of that corruption he was released from jail in a worse condition of homeless and destitute with the child support officials demanding more cash payments regardless of his condition"

However, to Mr. Cusick, I think someone needs to overhaul your biography page. It needs a lot of grammatical work. I would be happy to re-write it for you to give it a better professional-sounding quality. I mean no disrespect by saying this, but like I said: It does need some work.

For instance, the above sentence could be changed to:

"Despite Mr. Cusick's attempts to cooperate with child support officials, the corruption rampant within the system made such cooperation impossible. Instead, he was released from jail in a state of homelessness and destitution, and these factors played no part in deciding how much Mr. Cusick should pay. Even when there was no roof over his head, he was expected to pay increasing amounts of money for child support."

And we know this because he said so??? When the economy was better in this state they just told them to flip a hamburger, harsh, yes but the kiddos gotta eat.
Please overhaul his page, it was written by a rookie, but check out his story. We've all been there seen the old whoa is me story and we don't know this man.
Look at that congressman who owes $117,000 and makes what $174,000 per year. I can't remember his name, but that is an example of "his family values" not mine.

by jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:31 pm

His name is Joe Walsh, Rep from IL

by JP Cusick Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:43 pm

Shirina wrote:

However, to Mr. Cusick, I think someone needs to overhaul your biography page. It needs a lot of grammatical work. I would be happy to re-write it for you to give it a better professional-sounding quality. I mean no disrespect by saying this, but like I said: It does need some work.

For instance, the above sentence could be changed to:

"Despite Mr. Cusick's attempts to cooperate with child support officials, the corruption rampant within the system made such cooperation impossible. Instead, he was released from jail in a state of homelessness and destitution, and these factors played no part in deciding how much Mr. Cusick should pay. Even when there was no roof over his head, he was expected to pay increasing amounts of money for child support."

I see you have a very valid point and that is a very generous offer, but I figure that I better overhaul the "bio page" myself as that would be fitting.

I have this old idea about never rewriting anything because I have to stand behind everything as it was done, and this is why I very seldom ever "edit" any online posting of mine, but your point is well given and I will work on that soon.

Thank you for the critique.

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:44 pm

No surprise that most people think there should be tougher controls on the behaviour of other people.

by JP Cusick Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:54 pm

jstnay wrote:

You don't sound like any Democrat I know or have heard of unless they are behind on their Child Support. Why do you think Child Support is evil? Do you believe Divorce is evil? Are you an evangelical?

Some people follow along like sheep, and that is okay as we like sheep, but some others will buck like goats against the status quo, so instead of following we lead the flock.

I see divorce as a negative and unhappy occurrence but NOT necessarily as evil, but to push people into a divorce or to violate a marriage is evil.

The two married person may do whatever they them selves chose, but in such regards our laws need to tread very delicately or not at all.

The Child Support is evil because it hurts everyone concerned, as it is not based on proper human ideals, and it violates the parent's parenting, and it turns parents into criminals, and it alienates the children from their parents, and it undermines the social structure, and it is a deception as it does not support the children.

by jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:03 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
jstnay wrote:

You don't sound like any Democrat I know or have heard of unless they are behind on their Child Support. Why do you think Child Support is evil? Do you believe Divorce is evil? Are you an evangelical?

Some people follow along like sheep, and that is okay as we like sheep, but some others will buck like goats against the status quo, so instead of following we lead the flock.

I see divorce as a negative and unhappy occurrence but NOT necessarily as evil, but to push people into a divorce or to violate a marriage is evil.

The two married person may do whatever they them selves chose, but in such regards our laws need to tread very delicately or not at all.

The Child Support is evil because it hurts everyone concerned, as it is not based on proper human ideals, and it violates the parent's parenting, and it turns parents into criminals, and it alienates the children from their parents, and it undermines the social structure, and it is a deception as it does not support the children.

Again in California, child support is done by formula not who is Mom or Dad. Why wouldn't a Mother or Father want to pay child support, for one reason or another the parents didn't get along it is not the Childrens fault.
Evil is not taking financial responsibility for your children whether you are the Mom or Dad.

I am a female, I believe Moms should pay child support if they make more than Dad does. I take no sides in this situation.

by jstnay Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:50 am

Mr. Cusick,
I have to laugh, you were on the 'lets talk politics board'. That is Krickitt's board and she bans everyone. In that respect you are not alone, many many people have been banned for even suggesting that Obama is a human. LOL

by dimsum Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:08 am

I too was banned after just one post on her thread. She is a true nutcase..

Hi Shirina long time no "see"..

Jst hey lady..

by GreatNPowerfulOz Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:38 am

"Actually ... you did. Yes, that was your original point, and admittedly I sidetracked the topic to be about this Mississippi referendum, but once we did start talking about the referendum, you defended it." ~ Shirina

Actually...no I didn't. Go back and read the thread, including the first post. As a moderator, you'll be able to see it's unedited. I made two points: 1) we only view fetuses as not "persons" because they've not been legally defined as persons previously and if they were legally defined "persons" then it would change our perception of them, and 2) there is a glaring contradiction in our laws where if a "mother" has an abortion its a "choice" but if anyone else causes the untimely end of the "life" of a fetus it's fetal homocide or feticide, thus affording the fetus the status of a person which can be the victim of a crime.

You projected a host of political rhetoric into the discussion...maybe you're just confused.

by JP Cusick Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:20 am

jstnay wrote:

Again in California, child support is done by formula not who is Mom or Dad. Why wouldn't a Mother or Father want to pay child support, for one reason or another the parents didn't get along it is not the Children's fault.
Evil is not taking financial responsibility for your children whether you are the Mom or Dad.

I am a female, I believe Moms should pay child support if they make more than Dad does. I take no sides in this situation.

I do know that California is better or less severe than other States, as like my Maryland kept contacting California to collect the Child Support more unjustly and California would not play along with the Maryland demands.

I do not take sides against the Dads or Moms either, but I do take the side of both parents against the laws because the laws are unjust and hurt the families.

It is a mistake to view the parents as not wanting to support their own children when it is just that the parents do not want to comply with the unjust and evil Child Support orders.

It is a huge mistake to give the power to Judges and Courts and Lawyers and laws to decide the duties of parents and their parenting concerning their children because the law enforcement is meant for criminals and not for parents or for children.

If we really must violate parents between each other and stand between the parents and their children then surely lawyers and Judges are not competent to do such things, as why would not a marriage counselor along with psychologist and family social workers who have training with children and their parents be the better Judges and overseers?

The Lawyers and Judges are trained in law enforcement against criminals and they surely do not know how to raise children or how to discipline parents.

jstnay wrote:

Mr. Cusick,
I have to laugh, you were on the 'lets talk politics board'. That is Krickitt's board and she bans everyone. In that respect you are not alone, many many people have been banned for even suggesting that Obama is a human. LOL

I was happy to be banned from there because it had far too much profanity and dirty words being posted, and they posted hateful bigoted stuff about President Obama, and I got banned because I told the Moderator she was wrong and they called it a personal attack.

I posted my feeling about it HERE as I wanted to tell my side of that story.

by Shirina Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:18 am

Hi Shirina long time no "see"..

Hey there, dimsum ... glad to see you onboard! Hopefully you'll stick around for a spell.

by Guest Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:31 am

jstnay wrote:
Mr. Cusick skipped out on his child support among other things.

Shirina wrote:
"Despite Mr. Cusick's attempts to cooperate with child support officials, the corruption rampant within the system made such cooperation impossible. Instead, he was released from jail in a state of homelessness and destitution, and these factors played no part in deciding how much Mr. Cusick should pay. Even when there was no roof over his head, he was expected to pay increasing amounts of money for child support."

jstnay wrote:
And we know this because he said so???

Yes.

Given the fact that neither you, Shirina, me, nor anyone else on this forum knew of Mr. Cusick's situation prior to Mr. Cusick's posting hereon, his account is all that you have. Thus, our choices are but 3, (1) remain in our state of knowledge prior to Mr. Cusick's posts and know nothing, (2) believe Mr. Cusick's story in its entirety, or (3) believe some parts of Mr. Cusick's story while disbelieving other parts.

I do not believe that Mr. Cusick would concoct such a story; accordingly, I exclude option (1) as unbelievable. It boggles my mind to even think of trying to “parcel out” which parts of Mr. Cusick's story to believe and which parts to disbelieve; accordingly, I exclude option (3) as practically impossible and thus impractical. That leaves option (3) as the sole believable, practical choice; accordingly, I choose to believe Mr. Cusick's story in its entirety unless and until someone provides clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

You, of course, are free to choose as you deem fit.

jstnay wrote:
When the economy was better in this state they just told them to flip a hamburger, harsh, yes but the kiddos gotta eat.

Whether or not “the kiddos gotta eat” has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Mr. Cusick’s story is true and whether Mr. Cusick has been unjustly treated by the Maryland Justice System.

I regret the “harsh” succinctness of my comment, but it’s truth as I see it.

by Shirina Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:37 am

I was happy to be banned from there because it had far too much profanity and dirty words being posted, and they posted hateful bigoted stuff about President Obama, and I got banned because I told the Moderator she was wrong and they called it a personal attack.

Yeah, I was one of Marshabar's arch-enemies, so to speak, on the UK politics board, and I am not at all surprised by their actions. I never could get into that site since the first time I clicked the link, I received a message that I was banned. I'm not sure how they pulled that one off unless they knew my IP. She thinks I trolled her on the UK board, and admittedly, I DID troll her after spending months trying to coax reasoned debate from her. After that, however, myself - and my partner in crime MKitty - spammed her anti-Obama threads to death. The Brits already saw the 10 or 15 anti-Obama threads (started daily) as spam to begin with. The spamming of her (and her right-wing partners') pointless threads proved remarkably effective and sent them into a rage, and the fact that a dozen other posters began spamming their anti-Obama threads with everything from random food recipes to equally random song lyrics, well, that only fueled it.

So I am guilty, but not nearly as guilty as they were. What prompted me to begin my spam celebration was having to endure over a year of hideous name-calling by the right-wingers. Oh, I don't mean your standard names, but the truly nasty ones. I was called racial slurs, I was bombarded with sexist remarks, I was sexualized with profanity and vulgar filth, I had my life threatened, they wished ill will toward my family and, in fact, there were no boundaries of civility that they were not willing to cross. I actually still have a word document filled with quotes from them just in case.

And yet, when I merely called one of her right-wing goons "stupid," Marshabar actually started a thread about how all liberals do is call people names and referenced my post in particular. LOL? Apparently conservatives are entitled to play by different rules than liberals which those who have been banned from Marshabar's board know only too well. Perhaps her board would be more aptly named, "Let's Talk Rubbish."

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:13 pm

Oh, come on Shrina...the Dana Crew were hardly "right-wingers". They were epic internet trolls, sure...but casting yourself as the victim of right wing extremists for your political views when, in fact, you were just relentlessly trolled because you were a bit of a lolcow is just erroneous.

Granted...you did catch on after a while. However, your Mkitty thread is the stuff of legends....you were so clueless that you actually had the trolls feeling sorry for you.

You're an academic at heart...which, most assuredly, precludes you from seeing things from certain points of view.

by Shirina Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:47 pm

Oh, come on Shrina...the Dana Crew were hardly "right-wingers". They were epic internet trolls, sure...but casting yourself as the victim of right wing extremists for your political views when, in fact, you were just relentlessly trolled because you were a bit of a lolcow is just erroneous.

LOL! I hope you enjoy the taste of feet since you just ate yours. If you look at my post I said the UK board. You're talking about that infernal cesspool called the US News board. Two different boards. In fact, the whole reason why I'm here is because of posting on the UK board.

As for the so-called "Dana Crew," now there was a waste of space if ever there was one. Being considered a "lol cow" in the eyes of pathetic group of social misfits who spent 10 hours a day Monday through Friday sitting on a message board bullying people is hardly something to be ashamed of. I would have to wonder about myself if they didn't attack me.

Granted...you did catch on after a while. However, your Mkitty thread is the stuff of legends....you were so clueless that you actually had the trolls feeling sorry for you.

Actually, I think the trolls were clueless. But the true clueless people were the regular posters who bought into the Dana Crew's cheap theatrics and thought bullying people was funny. Most people, however, are cowards at heart and will follow whatever small group appears the most threatening. I don't "follow along" when I disagree, and I have a particular loathing for bullies. I took a stand, and I'm certainly not going to feel apologetic or ashamed for having done so.

You're an academic at heart...which, most assuredly, precludes you from seeing things from certain points of view.

The Dana Crew is just one of many examples of why America is filled from sea to shining sea with idiots. It is a truism in this country that anyone who actually displays better than average intelligence is often ruthlessly bullied. Even if you are smart, you better hide it. Social survival throughout high school hinges upon being a vapid, empty-headed buffoon - and you have to at least pretend that the canned, scripted "humor" that Dana Crew employed is actually funny. And hey ... it might have been funny for those who have never heard it before. I played the survival game in school despite all of my teachers always lecturing me about "not living up to my potential." I still have vivid memories of deliberately avoiding the use of proper grammar or quasi-obscure words to avoid the avalanche of people thinking I might be too "uppity" for my own good. Of course, if I were to ever be too "uppity" by displaying more than an 8th grade intellect, someone like the Dana Crew would have been there to claw me down to their level. It's the tactic of a bully - beat them down until they submit.

Oh, I caught on, all right. I caught on years before I ever logged into the US News board. There, however, the Dana Crew demanded that the board only be used for cliche sexual humor, and any "serious talk" was banned forthwith by Dana Crew decree. I did my time being a conformist a long time ago and refused to do it again even when all of the regular posters conformed. No, in retrospect, I came out of that fiasco feeling a rather smug pride in not having caved in. Trolls are a dime a dozen on the internet, and the Dana Crew types are as cheap as they come. A person with a brain? Now THAT is rare. You, Oz, chose to camp out in the sewer with the rest of the turds - I'm not sure why since you're not stupid. Perhaps, after four decades of life, you're still trying to hide your intelligence?

I know you're probably going to claim that the Dana Crew had some mystical, unfathomable, higher-order reason for acting like they do, but they don't. Believing that they are anything more than garden variety bullies is why you, my friend, are the clueless one - you got caught up in the feeding frenzy like many others, and even now, you defend their actions. LOL! Even the vaunted Dana Crew would not tangle with me one-on-one. They would only come after me when they had safety in numbers.

by JP Cusick Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:07 pm

jstnay wrote:

And we know this because he said so??? When the economy was better in this state they just told them to flip a hamburger, harsh, yes but the kiddos gotta eat.

The things is that the children do eat, and it is not true to equate the demands of Child Support with the children eating or clothing or housing or medical or any such claim, because here in the USA, and in the UK too, then there are many resources available for children as the Custodial can get Public Assistance for anything the child(ren) need, and for lots of stuff that are luxuries which they want but do not need.

So we do NOT have homeless or starving or naked or sick children anywhere, except and only except by the abuse or neglect or the incompetence of the child's custodial.

In the USA the poorest of poor children with Custodial on Welfare do not get the Child Support even if it does get paid, link HERE and HERE, so when the laws do not give the Child Support to the poorest of poor families then every other case is richer and better supplied and the Child Support is just extra cash which is NOT needed.

Claiming the children are hungry or "gotta eat" is just dramatizing the reality to provoke an emotional reaction and the result is a complete fraud.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:09 pm

I know for a fact that most of the Dana Crew were professionals in real life...from lawyers to software engineers for HP to accountants to human resource directors for national companies...these are not "stupid" people. Whether or not their "pack mentality" in trolling is evidence of low intelligence is highly debatable...however, on thing is not: you still have no clue what trolling is really all about.

Oh...and for the safety in numbers idea: what's the point of causing someone to have a meltdown if no one's around to see it? It's not that they COULDN'T troll you one-on-one...it's that there's not point in it. Still so much have you to learn, my young apprentice...

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:28 pm

Whenever there's a quiet moment on the news front, British newspapers will often fill a corner of a page with a barely credible Would-you-believe-it? story that always begins with the words .... "In America ...."

by Shirina Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:43 pm

I know for a fact that most of the Dana Crew were professionals in real life...from lawyers to software engineers for HP to accountants to human resource directors for national companies...these are not "stupid" people.

And that means what, exactly? Do you think you need an exceptional intelligence to be a lawyer or a software engineer? It's a fallacy to assume intelligence based on one's career. And ... for people with such high-end lives working for national companies, they sure did find an awful lot of time to troll message boards during normal working hours. Perhaps they suck at their jobs and just haven't been fired yet which isn't all that unusual. Assuming you can really know all that much as "fact" where people on the internet are concerned.

Whether or not their "pack mentality" in trolling is evidence of low intelligence is highly debatable

What demonstrates low intelligence was their inability to be effective without being in their pack. It also demonstrates that they're not all that "quick witted," either, since once they ran out of internet memes, they floundered abysmally. Their failure to think on their feet was readily apparent.

however, on thing is not: you still have no clue what trolling is really all about.

You can obfuscate the issue all you want to, but it still comes down to pure and simple bullying. There is nothing more complicated about it than that. Clear away all the smoke, the bull, the idiotic justifications, and it's just plain old bullying. It takes a certain mentality to bully - to actually take delight in another person's distress. Usually those people are trying desperately to make someone else even more miserable than they are so they can feed off it, to say, "At least I'm not them!"

But, Mr. Troll Mystigogue, since you seem to be the Grand Poobah of Trolls, why not lay your cards out on the table right now? Tell us what trolling is really all about. I'm all ears. Or eyes, in this case.

what's the point of causing someone to have a meltdown if no one's around to see it?

Yeah, I had a cousin the same way. He was an angel when no one else was around, but if he thought he had an audience, he would find someone to bully in the hopes of getting a laugh. However, everyone hated him and he routinely had the crap kicked out of him. He also tortured insects by the time he started school and moved his way up to larger animals as he got older. My family is convinced he'll end up a serial killer. Believe me I know the type, and the Dana Crew isn't any different, just a little less extreme. A lot of people secretly harbor watching the suffering of others because it puts their own life in a particular context, but only a few enjoy CAUSING the suffering of others, and those are not the type of people to emulate. I'm not sure why you do. Aren't there better "heroes" in this world than a pack of socially dysfunctional internet trolls?

It's not that they COULDN'T troll you one-on-one...it's that there's not point in it.

No, they couldn't. They tried. They need each other for material, bouncing jokes off each other and the like. How effective would Laurel be without Hardy? Abbot without Costello? Individually, they don't have the creativity to best me in a verbal sparring match, but together, they take me out of the equation altogether by talking about me rather than to me. That is why they need an audience, kind of like a stand-up comedian who isn't at all funny without audience participation.

On a message board forum, there is ALWAYS an audience, and posts are there for people to read no matter the time of day. Claiming they didn't troll me because they didn't have an audience is erroneous. They didn't troll me - couldn't troll me - because they couldn't do it one-on-one.

by Shirina Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:49 pm

Also, there are other people still trying to talk about the actual thread topic, so I'm going to ask that we both take the discussion about trolling to PMs. I'm as guilty of this as you are, so it's not an admonishment. But out of respect for others (which, by the way, the Dana Crew did not have), we shouldn't be interrupting the thread topic.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:48 pm

"No, they couldn't. They tried. They need each other for material, bouncing jokes off each other and the like. How effective would Laurel be without Hardy? Abbot without Costello? Individually, they don't have the creativity to best me in a verbal sparring match, but together, they take me out of the equation altogether by talking about me rather than to me. That is why they need an audience, kind of like a stand-up comedian who isn't at all funny without audience participation." ~ Shirina

It's amazing how you can stand in front of a forest and not see trees.

The Dana Crew trolling you was not about YOU. It wasn't about "writing for the audience" as Dual was so fond of saying...it was about THEM interacting with each other online. You, or whomever the topic of conversation, were irrelevant to the "what" of the conversation...it was that there was a conversation at all which was the point.

Your righteous indignation only fueled them...it had absolutely no relevance to the morality of what they were doing to them, only to you. Trolling people is about exposing their obliviousness to their own circumstances...that the internet is the last real refuge of freedom of thought and expression. Trolling people is about making THEM show their true colors, in spite of themselves and no matter how hard they try to pretend to be something other than what they are....about pushing a person's buttons to the point where they show their TRUE character and not their faux personality.

by jstnay Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:06 pm

[quote="JP Cusick"]

jstnay wrote:

Again in California, child support is done by formula not who is Mom or Dad. Why wouldn't a Mother or Father want to pay child support, for one reason or another the parents didn't get along it is not the Children's fault.
Evil is not taking financial responsibility for your children whether you are the Mom or Dad.

I am a female, I believe Moms should pay child support if they make more than Dad does. I take no sides in this situation.

I do know that California is better or less severe than other States, as like my Maryland kept contacting California to collect the Child Support more unjustly and California would not play along with the Maryland demands.

I do not take sides against the Dads or Moms either, but I do take the side of both parents against the laws because the laws are unjust and hurt the families.

It is a mistake to view the parents as not wanting to support their own children when it is just that the parents do not want to comply with the unjust and evil Child Support orders.

It is a huge mistake to give the power to Judges and Courts and Lawyers and laws to decide the duties of parents and their parenting concerning their children because the law enforcement is meant for criminals and not for parents or for children.

If we really must violate parents between each other and stand between the parents and their children then surely lawyers and Judges are not competent to do such things, as why would not a marriage counselor along with psychologist and family social workers who have training with children and their parents be the better Judges and overseers?

The Lawyers and Judges are trained in law enforcement against criminals and they surely do not know how to raise children or how to discipline parents.

As you know I only speak about the State I live in. Here they have a mediator and possibly both parents could be ordered to reconcillion court which is counseling.
The Mediator has complete control over the money and any other arrangements with the children such as which school they go to, will either parent be allowed to move and take the children out of the county ( here our counties are all bunched up) except for school it probably would be allowed depending on how far his home is from school etc.
If the parents can't agree with each other when they are in mediation then it's court time, more often than not they work it out.
After you go through mediation, the Judge has to ok it so it doesn't violate any state law, she usually rubberstamps it since the mediators pretty much know the law.

You said California would not go along with Maryland, Washington State is pretty much the same way, you have to go by their rules not the state the order came from.

by jstnay Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:09 pm

I spelled reconciliation wrong, will try to be more careful. I also quoted myself, oh well I'll learn in time.

by jstnay Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:23 pm

Shirina wrote:
I was happy to be banned from there because it had far too much profanity and dirty words being posted, and they posted hateful bigoted stuff about President Obama, and I got banned because I told the Moderator she was wrong and they called it a personal attack.

Yeah, I was one of Marshabar's arch-enemies, so to speak, on the UK politics board, and I am not at all surprised by their actions. I never could get into that site since the first time I clicked the link, I received a message that I was banned. I'm not sure how they pulled that one off unless they knew my IP. She thinks I trolled her on the UK board, and admittedly, I DID troll her after spending months trying to coax reasoned debate from her. After that, however, myself - and my partner in crime MKitty - spammed her anti-Obama threads to death. The Brits already saw the 10 or 15 anti-Obama threads (started daily) as spam to begin with. The spamming of her (and her right-wing partners') pointless threads proved remarkably effective and sent them into a rage, and the fact that a dozen other posters began spamming their anti-Obama threads with everything from random food recipes to equally random song lyrics, well, that only fueled it.

So I am guilty, but not nearly as guilty as they were. What prompted me to begin my spam celebration was having to endure over a year of hideous name-calling by the right-wingers. Oh, I don't mean your standard names, but the truly nasty ones. I was called racial slurs, I was bombarded with sexist remarks, I was sexualized with profanity and vulgar filth, I had my life threatened, they wished ill will toward my family and, in fact, there were no boundaries of civility that they were not willing to cross. I actually still have a word document filled with quotes from them just in case.

And yet, when I merely called one of her right-wing goons "stupid," Marshabar actually started a thread about how all liberals do is call people names and referenced my post in particular. LOL? Apparently conservatives are entitled to play by different rules than liberals which those who have been banned from Marshabar's board know only too well. Perhaps her board would be more aptly named, "Let's Talk Rubbish."

Krickitt was invited to our thread on the MSN boards by a ding dong, She really didn't last all that long since most of us were either center or left of center.
She once tried to tell me there are consentration camps under the 3 closed military bases here. LOL
We are just above sea level and it would be impossible, also even though they are closed as bases they are now Business Parks. Anyone can go there anytime they want, no guards etc.
She has mental health problems, which is about as nice as I can put it.

by JP Cusick Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:40 pm

jstnay wrote:

As you know I only speak about the State I live in. Here they have a mediator and possibly both parents could be ordered to reconciliation court which is counseling.
The Mediator has complete control over the money and any other arrangements with the children such as which school they go to, will either parent be allowed to move and take the children out of the county ( here our counties are all bunched up) except for school it probably would be allowed depending on how far his home is from school etc.
If the parents can't agree with each other when they are in mediation then it's court time, more often than not they work it out.
After you go through mediation, the Judge has to ok it so it doesn't violate any state law, she usually rubberstamps it since the mediators pretty much know the law.

You said California would not go along with Maryland, Washington State is pretty much the same way, you have to go by their rules not the state the order came from.

Parents here in Maryland (and I believe in every State) can cut a deal before going to the Court, and then the Courts rubber-stamp the deal here too, and there are more options when the 2 parents are married rather than 2 single parents who have fewer options.

But I say it is not accurate to view the Court's "rubber-stamp" as a non-player or a non-participant because the Court carries the big huge THREAT of brute force against the parents if they do not cut some deal, which means the parenting and families are being violated every time.

It would be like a thief who says they have their gun hidden in their pocket, so pay them or else the gun comes out.

I declare with complete conviction that the 2 parents need to work out their own parenting without any outside legalities involved, so any "Mediator" having such control over the money and over the children means that Mediator is violating the parents' parenting, and it violates the children's relationship under their parents.

by jstnay Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:12 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
jstnay wrote:

As you know I only speak about the State I live in. Here they have a mediator and possibly both parents could be ordered to reconciliation court which is counseling.
The Mediator has complete control over the money and any other arrangements with the children such as which school they go to, will either parent be allowed to move and take the children out of the county ( here our counties are all bunched up) except for school it probably would be allowed depending on how far his home is from school etc.
If the parents can't agree with each other when they are in mediation then it's court time, more often than not they work it out.
After you go through mediation, the Judge has to ok it so it doesn't violate any state law, she usually rubberstamps it since the mediators pretty much know the law.

You said California would not go along with Maryland, Washington State is pretty much the same way, you have to go by their rules not the state the order came from.

Parents here in Maryland (and I believe in every State) can cut a deal before going to the Court, and then the Courts rubber-stamp the deal here too, and there are more options when the 2 parents are married rather than 2 single parents who have fewer options.

But I say it is not accurate to view the Court's "rubber-stamp" as a non-player or a non-participant because the Court carries the big huge THREAT of brute force against the parents if they do not cut some deal, which means the parenting and families are being violated every time.

It would be like a thief who says they have their gun hidden in their pocket, so pay them or else the gun comes out.

I declare with complete conviction that the 2 parents need to work out their own parenting without any outside legalities involved, so any "Mediator" having such control over the money and over the children means that Mediator is violating the parents' parenting, and it violates the children's relationship under their parents.

The Mediator is there so no one bullys the other. They make you sit there and try to work out your problems they are trained to do what is best for the child NOT the parents. You suggested a psychologist many mediators are just that. If you get two people in a room and talking things get done, give them two attorneys and all you get is two rich attorneys.
So if Mom makes 10K a month and offers Dad $200 per month when he only makes say $5K and has bills just like she does, it isn't going to float because it is not reasonable. Usually the ones that end up in court are the very wealthy because this works so well for average income people. Not only that it saves both parties a fortune by not having to pay an attorney.
The mediator is not supposed to take sides with the parents, just use the facts as they are presented to him.

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:37 pm

It's Life, Jim - but not as we know it.

by JP Cusick Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:40 pm

jstnay wrote:

The Mediator is there so no one bullys the other. They make you sit there and try to work out your problems they are trained to do what is best for the child NOT the parents. You suggested a psychologist many mediators are just that. If you get two people in a room and talking things get done, give them two attorneys and all you get is two rich attorneys.
So if Mom makes 10K a month and offers Dad $200 per month when he only makes say $5K and has bills just like she does, it isn't going to float because it is not reasonable. Usually the ones that end up in court are the very wealthy because this works so well for average income people. Not only that it saves both parties a fortune by not having to pay an attorney.
The mediator is not supposed to take sides with the parents, just use the facts as they are presented to him.

That means you (and the peoples involved) are putting a huge amount of trust onto the Mediators, and they are giving the Mediator a huge amount of power over the people's family and their lives, so even if the Mediator is wonderful and magnificent then the Mediator simply does NOT belong into the parents' business of parenting.

It might seem nice and civilized to make the parents separation into a respectful and cordial and easy going event, but it destroys the family as a unit, it prevents the 2 parents from dealing with their own parenting and with their own children, and it changes parenting into some perverted and inhuman act of legally ordered Child Support and Custody laws.

When the laws try to fix the problems for the people then the people fail to fix their own problems, and when it is parenting then the family unit gets destroyed.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:41 pm

[quote="JP Cusick"]

jstnay wrote:

I declare with complete conviction that the 2 parents need to work out their own parenting without any outside legalities involved, so any "Mediator" having such control over the money and over the children means that Mediator is violating the parents' parenting, and it violates the children's relationship under their parents.

That's just idiotic. The relationships where both partners are equal in financial resources are an infinitismal percentage at best....as a society, we need to look out for the interests of the children so that an advantaged but terrible parent can't just obliterate the other because of lack of financial means to both provide for the child or even provide for the fight to keep custody of the child/ren. We have a moral obligation to look out for the best interests of the minor children and not leave them as casualties of two disfunctional adults (or a single disfunctional adult, if the case). As a socialist Democrat, I'm rather surprised that you completely ignore a core principle of your political party...that it takes a village to raise a child. To Democrats, children are...in principle...the property of the state and that parents only retain custody of them. You don't seem like much of a Democrat.

by jstnay Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:50 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
jstnay wrote:

The Mediator is there so no one bullys the other. They make you sit there and try to work out your problems they are trained to do what is best for the child NOT the parents. You suggested a psychologist many mediators are just that. If you get two people in a room and talking things get done, give them two attorneys and all you get is two rich attorneys.
So if Mom makes 10K a month and offers Dad $200 per month when he only makes say $5K and has bills just like she does, it isn't going to float because it is not reasonable. Usually the ones that end up in court are the very wealthy because this works so well for average income people. Not only that it saves both parties a fortune by not having to pay an attorney.
The mediator is not supposed to take sides with the parents, just use the facts as they are presented to him.

That means you (and the peoples involved) are putting a huge amount of trust onto the Mediators, and they are giving the Mediator a huge amount of power over the people's family and their lives, so even if the Mediator is wonderful and magnificent then the Mediator simply does NOT belong into the parents' business of parenting.

It might seem nice and civilized to make the parents separation into a respectful and cordial and easy going event, but it destroys the family as a unit, it prevents the 2 parents from dealing with their own parenting and with their own children, and it changes parenting into some perverted and inhuman act of legally ordered Child Support and Custody laws.

When the laws try to fix the problems for the people then the people fail to fix their own problems, and when it is parenting then the family unit gets destroyed.

You finally outed yourself, you think the parents should stay together and fight like cats and dogs in front of the children. I'm here to tell you, you are wrong. It either works or it doesn't, the court has the ability to order you and your spouse to reconciliation court aka family counciling IF they think it will help you, I'd bet the farm you would not go.
You are completely unreasonable, it's your way or the highway

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:07 am

"Also, there are other people still trying to talk about the actual thread topic, so I'm going to ask that we both take the discussion about trolling to PMs. I'm as guilty of this as you are, so it's not an admonishment. But out of respect for others (which, by the way, the Dana Crew did not have), we shouldn't be interrupting the thread topic" ~ Shirina

The guy's a troll...if you haven't caught on by now, it'd be no use explaining the obviousness of it. Go back and re-read the thread...it's entirely a bait thread.

Anyway...hope you have a nice weekend (what's left of it) and are doing well. You're still the best "Star Poster" around. Smile

by Shirina Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:16 am

Trolling people is about exposing their obliviousness to their own circumstances...that the internet is the last real refuge of freedom of thought and expression. Trolling people is about making THEM show their true colors, in spite of themselves and no matter how hard they try to pretend to be something other than what they are....about pushing a person's buttons to the point where they show their TRUE character and not their faux personality.

That's an unreasonable assumption. There are many facets to any person - there are no "true" colors. Only different reactions to different circumstances. All the Dana Crew did was get people pissed at them. So what? If they were trying to expose my "true" character, then it WAS about me. You're being self-contradictory. At any rate, all they exposed is that I don't put up with bullies. If that is my "true" personality, then I stand up proudly and readily admit it. At least I didn't bleat along with the rest of the sheep who shamelessly followed along with them. Yeah, the Dana Crew were nothing but cheap bullies, but what REALLY pissed me off was how people that I regarded as friends had no compunction about sticking a dagger in my back. The Dana Crew might have exposed "true" characters all right, but it wasn't mine. It was everyone else's ... it showed how easily they follow along with whatever dominant personality or group happens by, and how quickly they'll join in with the bullying instead of taking a stand against it. There's probably a sociological paper in this somewhere.

Anyone can get someone angry, and they pushed every button imaginable. I know you probably don't believe it, but I wasn't angry when I posted against them. I may have sounded like I was, but I wasn't. I was nowhere near a "meltdown." What did it for me was how the regulars behaved, and that was something the Dana Crew did not do. After that, I wanted nothing more to do with anyone on that board, and truth be told, I still don't.

You have a good weekend, too, Oz ... for me, my mother is coming down here to NC from PA, or so she says. LOL! I think the bad weather up north might keep her at home though. Take care, and don't troll anyone too much. They might just go postal on your ass!

by Guest Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:11 pm

Shirina wrote:
they don't have the creativity to best me in a verbal sparring match

Few do. I certainly disagree with many of your conclusions; that being said, your intellectual excellence and mental dexterity are irrefutable.

Shirina wrote:
… talking about me rather than to me.

Word study of Biblical Greek, an avocation available to all who possess sufficient scholarship to avail themselves of readily available resources, reveals that, in English translations, devil and gossiper/gossip-monger are the same Greek word, diaballos (transliterated), one who cast through dividing, one who divides, in context, one who causes dissension between and amongst others, one who separates folks one from another, and in Biblical applications, one who separates individuals from God by tempting them to steal, bribe and accept bribes, cheat, torture, rape, murder, etc.

Gossip mongers, diaballos, murder other folks’ names, which is exactly what the trolls of whom you speak sought to do to you.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:39 pm

"That's an unreasonable assumption. There are many facets to any person - there are no "true" colors." ~ Shirina

I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree. For each person, if you peel back all the layers of self-delusion and the image they project of themselves into the world, you will undoubtedly find the true nature of that person.

Liberals tend to do it to people who call themselves "christians" with fervor...

by JP Cusick Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:43 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

That's just idiotic. The relationships where both partners are equal in financial resources are an infinitismal percentage at best....as a society, we need to look out for the interests of the children so that an advantaged but terrible parent can't just obliterate the other because of lack of financial means to both provide for the child or even provide for the fight to keep custody of the child/ren. We have a moral obligation to look out for the best interests of the minor children and not leave them as casualties of two disfunctional adults (or a single disfunctional adult, if the case). As a socialist Democrat, I'm rather surprised that you completely ignore a core principle of your political party...that it takes a village to raise a child. To Democrats, children are...in principle...the property of the state and that parents only retain custody of them. You don't seem like much of a Democrat.

It is the parents own job to look out for their own children, so it is NOT up to society to judge the best interest of their children.

And the 2 parents know about their financial circumstances and they probably knew about such details when they decided to have a baby together, and just because one is richer or being the poorer parents does NOT of itself make them as the stronger or weaker position. In fact the Women / mothers usually have so very much of an advantage that the father having the money is often their only leverage in such disputes.

We (society) does NOT have a moral obligation to look out for the best interests of the minor children, as that is the job of the 2 parents.

Where it takes a village to raise a child, then that means the village is to help the 2 parents in raising the child. It does not mean that the village is to overrule the 2 parents and raise the children contrary to their parents - no.

Plus I am not a "socialist Democrat" as I am an American Democrat.

=================================

jstnay wrote:

You finally outed yourself, you think the parents should stay together and fight like cats and dogs in front of the children. I'm here to tell you, you are wrong. It either works or it doesn't, the court has the ability to order you and your spouse to reconciliation court aka family counciling IF they think it will help you, I'd bet the farm you would not go.
You are completely unreasonable, it's your way or the highway

Actually parents fighting each other is a normal and healthy activity between parents and it has been going on since the beginning of time.

And your claim that it either "works or does not work" is a prescription for certain destruction every time, because in every relationship people have to make it work when it does not work.

And the idea that the Court is going to order the 2 parents into reconciliation is extremely pretentious for the Court.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:19 pm

"It is the parents own job to look out for their own children, so it is NOT up to society to judge the best interest of their children." ~ Windbag

That's moronic. Parents could claim that molesting their children teaches them to be sexually "complete"...or that starving a child is what God's punishment is for some offense.

We, as a society, have not only the moral authority to dictate what is and is not "acceptable behavior" by parents...we, collectively, have the inherent RIGHT to do so.

by JP Cusick Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:54 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

That's moronic. Parents could claim that molesting their children teaches them to be sexually "complete"...or that starving a child is what God's punishment is for some offense.

We, as a society, have not only the moral authority to dictate what is and is not "acceptable behavior" by parents...we, collectively, have the inherent RIGHT to do so.

Of course that is true in regard to actual physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence, but those are really separate issues away from the Child Support and Custody laws which divide parents from each other and divides children away from their parents just as its standard working procedure.

People continually try to over-dramatize the reality to justify those evil laws and it is a fraud.

by Sponsored content