Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Hard to Live With

So, Dependopotamus' family was talking about my brother outside the courtroom. Dependopotamus' sister-in-law, Dependopotamus Jr., stated:

"He must have been so hard to live with. I heard he only gave her $125/week to live on."

For the record:
Dependopotamus lived in a $250K house, the mortgage to which was paid by my brother.
All of the bills were paid by my brother. ALL OF THEM.
All of the food was paid for by my brother.
All of the clothing was paid for by my brother.

Dependopotamus did not have to pay for any necessity or recurring expense out of her $125 per week. That was straight-up disposable money for her to play with. $500 per month!

Dependopotamus and her family have no clue how 85% of America and 99% of the world live... which is surprising, because Dependopotamus Jr. and her hubby make significantly less than national average. Oh, yeah, they live with Dependopotamus' mom & dad. No rent makes financial life easier.


Tuesday, July 30, 2013

I Know the Basics

Many times in the martial arts, a student will "get bored" of practicing basics. Drills are eschewed. Repetitions are reduced. The person just says they "know" the move already.

I find this really funny.

Any time you watch a high ranking martial artist practicing, they are always doing the basics. The great Helio Gracie cannot be seen on video doing the latest half guard sweep or gi-tail choke. There is much footage of him, however, doing fundamental jiu-jitsu.

Hironori Ohtsuka, founder of Wado-Ryu karate is on video in several places, always doing fundamental combinations and kata. Never is he seen doing the more "advanced" techniques. Even the jujutsu he migrated into Wado was fundamental.

So, next time you are being shown a move, and "you know it already,"


Where Did The Money Come From?

Went to see my dad, Pops, and his wife, Grandmommy, a while back. We were discussing my brother's divorce. Grandmommy was taken aback when we discussed the origins of the money for the car.

Usagi: "And then, Dependopotamus testified that she was given all the money to buy her car a few years back."

Grandmommy: "Wait! She told us that she earned the money from her sales in Pampered Chef!"
(Pops confirms)

Usagi: "Well, later she testified to the fact that she was given $5000 from her grandma, and that my brother gave her the other $17,000."

Lies like this all throughout her time in our family. People just don't realize how bad it was.


Monday, July 29, 2013

Calvinist Lies 9

I know, I know - redundant title is redundant.

In this series, I will not debate Calvinism vs. Arminianism. After all, the majority of the people who use the term "Arminian" are Calvinists - a very small micro-sect of Christianity. The other 6-billion people on the planet refer to "Arminians" as Christians. I also like the term "Biblicist," when it comes to matters of doctrine.

X-Point Calvinism
Some people, who have clear issues with the more obvious heresies of Calvinism, will refer to themselves as an "X-Point" Calvinist. This could be a 1-point, 2-point, or any number of points out of the five points of TULIP. Let's look at the more common:

1-point Calvinist
This is most often used to describe the person who believes in Total Depravity. Note - this person almost never believes in total inability.

At this point, Calvinists will start reaching and twisting words (they always do).
"If you believe one, you will have to believe them all.

Funny thing...
Total Inability is not the same thing as Total Depravity.

4-point Calvinist
This is most often used to describe a person who believes in all but the L - Limited Atonement. This is the easiest of the points to shun, because it is the most clearly wrong, even to the simple minded person who has a short attention span and limited reading cognition.

At this point, Calvinists will start reaching and twisting words (they always do).
"Well, it should really be called particular atonement."

Funny thing...
God said that Christ's sacrifice was for ALL MANKIND. All a person has to do is accept.

3.5-Point Calvinist
Another "popular" choice. This is the Calvinist who rejects Limited Atonement and is torn on the true nuances of Total Depravity vs. the concept of Total Inability.

At this point, Calvinists will start reaching and twisting words (they always do).
This is really what Calvinism is.

Funny thing...
You cannot have it both ways, guys and gals!

Here's a thought
Because you cannot take out any of the Five Points of TULIP without destroying the validity of it all, then refusing to accept a single point is the same as denying all five.

Believing in predestination, but not limited atonement is simply double talk. Can't have one without the other.
Believing in Total Inability, without believing in Perseverance of the Saints is also double talk.
Here's a hint - believing in any one of the points without believing in any other point is double talk. 

No point of Calvinism, as taught by Calvin, is Biblical.
Calvinism's lead-ins are all Biblical.
Calvinism does not contradict itself, but does contradict the Bible.
Rejection of any part of Calvinism is rejection of the whole.
All of this and more is better written here


Needs Attention

Dependopotamus was always one who needed extra attention.

Now, I'm not just talking about the ordinary parts of life where a woman is naturally the center of attention: historically her wedding day and her first pregnancy. Though Dependopotamus needed extra attention then, too.

I'm talking about everyday situations.

And the divorce was icing on the cake:
She took the stand at 9:23 am. She left the stand at 4:53 pm.
There was a half-hour lunch break and a handful of 5-minute bathroom breaks.
Still, that's SIX HOURS of testimony.

Bipolar people often attempt to attract more attention their way.
I've known a few, and they are all this way.


Friday, July 26, 2013

All About the Money

From the divorce hearing:

D-pot's Atty: "How did you purchase your car?"

Dependopotamus: "With money that was a gift from my grandma."

** a little while later **

Atty: "How much did your car cost?"

Dependopotamus: "$22K."

Atty: "So your grandma gave you $22K to buy the car? Since gifts over $10K are taxable, where is the tax record?"

Dependopotamus: "There is no tax record. My grandma gave me $5K."

Atty: "And you have testified that the car cost $22K?"

Dependopotamus: (now with a shocked look) "Yes."

Atty: "Where did the other $17K come from?"

Dependopotamus: (looks down, dejected) "My husband."


Thursday, July 25, 2013

Can't Make Ends Meet

Dependopotamus testified that she cannot afford her rent at her new luxury apartment.
Part of the problem is that she got an apartment in the most expensive complex in the county.

The other part of it is her lack of budgeting skills.

Dependopotamus has been paid $2025 per month in child support and spouse support.
That's her "take-home" pay. A salary calculator tells me that this is comparable to a $30,000 / year job.
It's just her and my nephew - and he only part-time. She has no car payment.
If she worked a minimum-wage job ($7.25/hr.), her combined income would be the equivalent of $45K. That's higher than the state of Tennessee's median income ($44K)!

That's more take-home pay than half of the households of TN earn.

She cannot do what 1.2 million households in Tennessee do every day.


Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Uphold... huh???

Nancy Pelosi is at it again.

Yes, Mrs. "...we must pass the bill so we can find out what's in it..."

This time, it is "we must uphold the Constitution by passing gun control."

Link to story.

Mrs. Pelosi, be advised that this is how the Constitution reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 (emphasis mine)


You Know They Are Lying (2)

... When their lips are moving.

Dependopotamus testified in court several times that it was not about the money. Here are some facts about my brother's income levels, as per court documents and testimony:

2007 - $45K
2008 - $55K
2009 - $62K
2010 - $65K
2011 -$135K

Dependopotamus files for divorce three days after signing the 2011 tax return.


Tuesday, July 23, 2013

You Know They Are Lying

... When their lips are moving.

Dependopotamus testified on several occasions that the divorce was not about the money.

Yet... she takes my brother back to court (not counting the initial hearing) 7 times... each time, asking for more money!


Monday, July 22, 2013

Calvinist Lies 8

I know, I know - redundant title is redundant.

In this series, I will not debate Calvinism vs. Arminianism. After all, the majority of the people who use the term "Arminian" are Calvinists - a very small micro-sect of Christianity. The other 6-billion people on the planet refer to "Arminians" as Christians. I also like the term "Biblicist," when it comes to matters of doctrine.

Grace Based Salvation
Salvation is by Grace through faith, as mentioned in many parts of the Bible. Christians believe it. Calvinists proclaim it, too. The basic idea is that a person puts his or her faith in Jesus Christ, and is, therefore, granted the gift of salvation - which is God's grace.

At this point, Calvinists will start reaching and twisting words (they always do).
Calvinists will say that instead of believing in man having free will to accept salvation - which they liken to having to do something (works-based salvation) to be saved. I think we've covered that before.

Funny thing...
It is worth covering again, because the Calvinists will often "sling mud" by claiming that Grace Based Salvation requires that God not only do the work (which He did), but also that God choose whom will be saved. If God were the one doing the choosing, then that would not be grace:
You could conceivably have a person put his faith in Christ, but not be one of the "elect," and God would deny that person salvation, simply because that person was not part of "the elect."

Grace Based Salvation is contrary to works-based salvation.
Accepting a free gift is not a "work."
The works were the forgiveness of sin, the atonement for sin, and the sacrifice. Christ did these.


Friday, July 19, 2013

Are You Threatening Me?

Nope, not a Cornholio reference. It came in the divorce hearing:

D-pot's Atty: "Tell me what happened with your cat, Cocoa?"

Dependopotamus: "My husband, in a drunken stupor, made threats that he would kill Cocoa."

D-pot's Atty: "When was this?"

Dependopotamus: "After I filed for divorce and he was served with papers - early in March 2011."

** a little while later **

Atty: "You mentioned your husband threatened you cat, Cocoa?"

Dependopotamus: "Yes. He did."

Atty: "And you loved Cocoa very much?"

Dependopotamus: "Very much!"

Atty: "How long did you have Cocoa?"

Dependopotamus: "15 years. I got her as a kitten in 1994, and she died in 2009."

Atty: "But you testified that your husband threatened the cat in 2011?"

Dependopotamus: "He did!"

Atty: "But the cat died in 2009?"

Dependopotamus: "Yes."

Atty: "Dependopotamus, were you the one that was really drunk that night??? How could your husband kill a cat that had been dead for two years already?"

Dependopotamus: "Well, ummm. I mean... errr..."


Thursday, July 18, 2013

Lavish Residence

At the hearing:

Atty: "Dependopotamus, you have testified that you feel your husband's rent is exorbitant. Why?"

Dependopotamus: "He lives in the house that belonged to his mother before she passed. The mortgage bill is over $800 per month."

Atty: "And how about you? Where are you living now, and what is the rent?"

Dependopotamus: "I live in an apartment complex in this town. Rent is $1260 per month."

Atty: "So $800 per month for your husband's rent is 'lavish,' but $1260 per month for your place is fine?"

Dependopotamus: "Well, there was only this place and one other and, uh... I mean... ummm..."

FYI - average rent in that area is $668 / month. It was not hard to find apartments and rental houses at or below $700 / month.


Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Dressing Lavishly

Dependopotamus testified that my brother "dressed lavishly" because he purchased for himself a pair of cowboy boots ($95) a cowboy hat ($45) and a coat (purchased prior to the filing of divorce, so the price is irrelevant).

Atty: "Your wife, [Dependopotamus], has testified that you dress 'lavishly.' Tell me about your cowboy boots. How much did they cost?"

Brother: "$165."

Atty: "Do you have any other shoes? If so, how many pairs and how much did they cost?"

Brother: "I have a pair of running shoes, a pair of dress shoes, and one other pair of 'multi-purpose' shoes. Total cost was less than $150. These were all bought prior to the filing for divorce."

Atty: "And tell me about Dependopotamus' shoe collection. How many did she have and how much did they cost?"

Brother: "She had a shoe rack in our (walk-in) closet that was 12 feet long. It had a top and bottom shelf. It was completely filled on both levels with her shoes. There were approximately 30 more boxes of her shoes also stored in the closet. I'd take an educated guess that she had no less than $3000 in shoes - since there were well over 60 pairs, and estimating an average of $50 per pair."
(picture of just one corner)

Atty: "So, in her world, it is 'lavish' for you to have a total of $300 in shoes, and not for her to have $3000 in shoes?"

Brother: "Evidently."