Elections and Junk.

[MMDad]

Certainly, people here legally, migrating around and working, would be allowed to vote - as they would be legal residents of the place they are at to vote.

Why do you think that non-citizens should be allowed to vote?

Voting is, and should be, a right reserved for citizens. Period.

 

[This_person]

Why do you think that non-citizens should be allowed to vote?

Voting is, and should be, a right reserved for citizens. Period.

I don't think non-citizens should vote. I was just trying to get him to recognize a difference between a "migrant worker" and an "illegal alien".

Citizen only, I fully agree. I just wasn't going to give him yet another avenue to digress.

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

Why do you think that non-citizens should be allowed to vote?

Voting is, and should be, a right reserved for citizens. Period.

My point is that if a person has a legal State issued drivers license or ID card thereby legal to get a job, then I see no other status as justifying the person(s) from voting.

That is close enough to citizenship for voting purposes and the principles of democracy means "the people" vote and not just the elitist people voting.

 

[This_person]

None of this reflects what I said.
Above is incoherant and confused with no real way for me to reply. I am still trying to answer, and still open to legitimate questions though.

Okay, you're still trying to answer. So, let's go through and see what you said, and you help me understand Cusick-ese:

What is your position on ...
Campaign finance reform?

Yes, I like all of those.

I do not see the way that most people present campaign financing as being of any real concern.
The reform I would like to see would be the the gov under the Board of Elections to give a matter-of-fact account of each candidate and make that info readily available to the general population like even at voting / polling places and that way the big money would always be outside of the official public notification.
I even much like the idea of instant voter registration in that a valid State Identification (gov Picture ID) means the right to vote on election day.

I said to post their campaign info and their political positions and their personal info at the polling / voting places because then the voters would have a last minute of accurate info,

but not - NOT - not to put their financial info at the public voting places.
I say the financial accounting is already sufficient and putting the candidates official info at the voting places will undermine the effects of the big money over the small funds.

So, when I said that I understood this to mean that you believe the current financial accounting status is already sufficient, thus you did not see any need for actual "finance" reform, you told me I was wrong.

Please, again, since I didn't understand Cusick-ese, what FINANCE reform did you say you agreed with?

I see you want to have taxpayers provide candidate data at the polling place - fine, that's your position. What reform about financing campaigns were you saying you were for?

Do you understand what campaign finance reform is about?

 

[This_person]

My point is that if a person has a legal State issued drivers license or ID card thereby legal to get a job, then I see no other status as justifying the person(s) from voting.

That is close enough to citizenship for voting purposes and the principles of democracy means "the people" vote and not just the elitist people voting.

And, off to the tangent.

See, a person should need to prove citizenship to get the state issued ID. Otherwise, a non-citizen would appear the same as a citizen.

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

These are really good questions JPC, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say on them.

See, I answered T_p and he degrades into the dishonorable and childish comments.

It is not that I try to ignore him or anyone else but this is a family friendly Community Forum and I am a real candidate for the US Congress and T_p is an arrogent and beligerant disgrace.

When I try to answer him (try because he does not accept my answers) then the man turns deeper into his nasty and ugly postings and it is wrong for me to feed into that stuff.

Jesus said that his kind will trample pearls under their feet, and so he does.

 

[MMDad]

My point is that if a person has a legal State issued drivers license or ID card thereby legal to get a job, then I see no other status as justifying the person(s) from voting.

That is close enough to citizenship for voting purposes and the principles of democracy means "the people" vote and not just the elitist people voting.

When I went to Japan I was there legally, had ID, and could work legally. Should I, an American citizen, have been allowed to vote in the Japanese elections?

 

[This_person]

See, I answered T_p and he degrades into the dishonorable and childish comments.

Of which comment in this thread are you speaking. Perhaps, like you were with me above, I was unclear and can help you understand.

It is not that I try to ignore him or anyone else but this is a family friendly Community Forum and I am a real candidate for the US Congress and T_p is an arrogent and beligerant disgrace.

Now, why would you go and lie like that. "Real candidate"? Come on, Jimmy, we all know better. Even you know better.

When I try to answer him (try because he does not accept my answers) then the man turns deeper into his nasty and ugly postings and it is wrong for me to feed into that stuff.

Again, please provide me with what you consider nasty or ugly. I'd be happy to explain any problems you have understanding me to you.

Jesus said that his kind will trample pearls under their feet, and so he does.

I've read your views on Jesus and the Bible. I especially remember where you said whole books of the Bible are completely false. I'll take my chances with your Jesus anyday. I fought fictional characters before.

For clarity, I'm not saying Jesus is fictional - just YOUR Jesus.

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

When I went to Japan I was there legally, had ID, and could work legally. Should I, an American citizen, have been allowed to vote in the Japanese elections?

That same formula does not fit correctly with Japan since it is still much under American occupation after the war and so an American citizen having ID documentations is not necessarily a welcome guest but one of the occupiers.

So I do not know the law in Japan but I would hope that only the Japanese are legally allowed to vote there.

The same is true in Afghanistan and Iraq or other Countries where the USA is forcing those Countries to comply with the American demands.

 

[This_person]

That same formula does not fit correctly with Japan since it is still much under American occupation after the war and so an American citizen having ID documentations is not necessarily a welcome guest but one of the occupiers.

So I do not know the law in Japan but I would hope that only the Japanese are legally allowed to vote there.

The same is true in Afghanistan and Iraq or other Countries where the USA is forcing those Countries to comply with the American demands.

And, here I thought Larry was kidding about that stick.

Now we're Japanese occupiers, too? OMG

Who ties your shoes for you in the morning?

 

[hvp05]

The custodials are usually only given a pittance in child support and to really help the custodials they need afordable housing and afordable neccessities.

The pittance is small to those recieving the c/s, and it is a large amount to those paying because it is unjust to all involved.

I was going to ask a question, following the first part, but you conveniently answered it with the second part.

So now I will simply ask: do you not at all see how this could be perceived as a complete contradiction? You claim all CS is a "pittance" to those receiving it (and therefore pointless to receive at all), but is a "large amount" to the non-custodial (thereby justifying your claims that all non-custodials are driven to poverty), which makes your overall point more than a little self-defeating.

If a Democrat wins the Presidency then such a Bill is far more likely and it will depend on which Democrat because Hillary has a different plan then does Obama then Edwards and the others.

I like Obama better than Hillary and I say Edwards is the best candidate of them all, and I like Kucinich too link.

No one asked what you think of Hillary's, Obama's, Edwards's, or Kucinich's ideas; the point of T_P's line of questioning was to get at your ideas.

Can you not speak for yourself? Must you rely on others to come up with the idea first so you can simply regurgitate it?

Gosh knows you have been bold enough to come up with your own ideas on child support and the "greed growth" - so bold, in fact, that you fall outside the range of normalcy for 99% of your constituents.

Why can you not think for yourself now?

I wanted my glasses in the pic because glasses show more character in men. And I got this idea that it will look like a Washington Post pic instead of my own and it will make Hoyer look like the pretty boy that kills babies and I will be the pro life outsider.

So you are now relying on the hope that voters will be so superficial as to pay attention only to the fact that you sometimes wear glasses and Hoyer does not. IF they do look up your issues, they will see "Pro-life" versus "Pro-abortion" and then make a decision.

Noooooooooooothing else you have said is now important. Interesting.

Well I do not agree with any of that interpretation by T_p , and his interpretation is far FAR from what I said.

I said to post their campaign info and their political positions... but not - NOT - not to put their financial info at the public voting places.

I derived the same interpretation [from your statements] as I was reading. :shrug:

What kind of answer did you think you were expected to give when you responded to a question regarding campaign finance reform? Since that was the topic, why would you digress? (A real candidate should be reasonably able to follow a question-answer train for more than 8 seconds...)

Above is incoherant and confused with no real way for me to reply. It is true that I could give reply to each sentence but I am not here to play games with T_p as he tries to twist everything that I say.

It's here - the inevitable JPC dodge!

I do give T_P credit for continuing his effort and pressing the questions, because I never thought you would answer at all.

See, I answered T_p and he degrades into the dishonorable and childish comments... T_p is an arrogent and beligerant disgrace.

As T_P said, can you please post where he was posting any such alleged language/statements... 'cause I don't see them.


I would LOVE for you to attempt to employ some of the above "debating" tactics should you meet Rep. Hoyer in person. That would be the comedy event of the year!

 

[hvp05]

And if a migrant worker is given a legal ID so they can get a job then I see no reason they can not vote too.

I will say that T_P should have seen this one coming. If it were up to you, JPC, there would be no borders whatsoever, so there would be no "illegals". Everyone could be legal just by walking into their chosen U.S. city and driving, voting, getting a job, or whatever they want to do.

Regulation and licensing is for morons and the weak, right Jimmy?

 

[Giantone]

None of this reflects what I said.

Above is incoherant and confused with no real way for me to reply.

:

BS......................that's you in a nutshell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hvp05]

See, I answered T_p and he degrades into the dishonorable and childish comments... T_p is an arrogent and beligerant disgrace.

As T_P said, can you please post where he was posting any such alleged language/statements... 'cause I don't see them.

Jimmy, it's apparent that you can not provide proof that TP made any "dishonorable and childish comments" whatsoever, and I guess you believe you can ignore these things and they will be forgotten.

But why do you do this? You recently told me, on an unrelated issue, that I needed to "rise above" nasty comments if I want to be respected. That was a ridiculous claim at the time, but we can apply your words to you now.

Why can you not rise above making false accusations against people for simply disagreeing with you?

This is an issue that should be addressed since you are the one running for office - not TP, not myself, not anyone else here. You have already mentioned that you plan to use "nice respectful words" at the LWV debate. If this is supposed to be a different tactic than you use here, why change? Why can you not be consistent?

Your voting public wants to know...

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

Jimmy, it's apparent that you can not provide proof that TP made any "dishonorable and childish comments" whatsoever, and I guess you believe you can ignore these things and they will be forgotten.

But why do you do this? You recently told me, on an unrelated issue, that I needed to "rise above" nasty comments if I want to be respected. That was a ridiculous claim at the time, but we can apply your words to you now.

Why can you not rise above making false accusations against people for simply disagreeing with you?

When I told T_p and you about such deficiencies then I had yours or his post in the quote above my comments.

I keep everything I say right there in context so anyone reading it can see the point in particular.

Believe it or not - the honest and decisive criticism that I give might feel like nasty comments but if you or he accepted and acted on the criticism then you each would become wiser.

This is an issue that should be addressed since you are the one running for office - not TP, not myself, not anyone else here. You have already mentioned that you plan to use "nice respectful words" at the LWV debate. If this is supposed to be a different tactic than you use here, why change? Why can you not be consistent?

Your voting public wants to know...

I use nice and respectful words here all the time.

I was telling others here that their un-nice and ignorant comments would not be accepted there.

I am nice and respectful here and there and everywhere.

When I tell-off some posters on here then it might seem and feel harsh but that is life.

 

[hvp05]

When I told T_p and you about such deficiencies then I had yours or his post in the quote above my comments. I keep everything I say right there in context so anyone reading it can see the point in particular.

Um...

I quoted you saying, "See, I answered T_p and he degrades into the dishonorable and childish comments... T_p is an arrogent and beligerant disgrace." The post you were replying to when you said that was this one by mellabella.

Was mellabella posting childish comments? Or maybe it was TP's post to which she had replied? But you did begin answering TP's questions. If you thought they were dishonorable and childish why did you begin answering them? If you think those questions and comments were unworthy, you are going to suffer an EXTREMELY difficult evening come the night of the LWV debate. (As you apparently have with these questions, since you can or will not respond to them either.)

the honest and decisive criticism that I give might feel like nasty comments but if you or he accepted and acted on the criticism then you each would become wiser.

In order to accept and act on them I must first understand them... and I do not see that happening anytime soon.

I use nice and respectful words here all the time.

Like calling Rep. Hoyer a baby-killer? Will you say that to his face? If not, why not? Would you say that to him if he came on the forums?

When things start going downhill for you during the LWV debate will you ignore Hoyer and the public's questions or get up and leave?

 

[Giantone]

I was telling others here that their un-nice and ignorant comments would not be accepted there.

I am nice and respectful here and there and everywhere.

You're a Moron and a liar!


"And I got this idea that it will look like a Washington Post pic instead of my own and it will make Hoyer look like the pretty boy that kills babies and I will be the pro life outsider.

The politics of Politicians - so say I. "
__________________
==========================
SIGNATURE

James P. Cusick Sr. (D)



You don't think this is a un-nice or ignorant comment?You think that saying stuff like this is being resepectful?

 

[This_person]

I'm not making any claims. I'm asking you to provide proof to your accusations.

If you have none, just admit that you only offer baseless accusations without substance.

We have been throug this crud before and I guess you tired me out as I am not going to waste my time on your games.

If you have anything to say then you can say it,

or any real question then I will try to answer it.

When you base your questions on your own accusations then there is nothing that I can do with it.

Could you please provide details of your accusations:

• What specific action are you accusing Hoyer of regarding abortion? What law did he sponsor or vote in favor of regarding abortion, or what letter to the editor to change public opinion, or any action he's taken that may have made a difference in the lives of people in the 5th District regarding abortion?

• What action could you take as a Representative regarding abortion?

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

Could you please provide details of your accusations:

• What specific action are you accusing Hoyer of regarding abortion? What law did he sponsor or vote in favor of regarding abortion, or what letter to the editor to change public opinion, or any action he's taken that may have made a difference in the lives of people in the 5th District regarding abortion?

• What action could you take as a Representative regarding abortion?

A record of Hoyer's positions tabulated link HERE.

And on such things that are "pro-life" like banning the partial-birth abortions is what I would do if elected.

 

[This_person]

A record of Hoyer's positions tabulated link HERE.

And on such things that are "pro-life" like banning the partial-birth abortions is what I would do if elected.

An actual answer, I'm surprised and impressed.

• Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Doesn't really change whether abortions happen, now would it?

• Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

And, what became of this law?

• Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

• Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

And, what became of this law?

• Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

And, what became of this law?

• Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

• Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

Hmm, sounds a lot like the top one.