Elections and Junk.

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

I am sending some holiday fairy dust your way......

let me know when it is working

D a m n.

 

[This_person]

D a m n.

Is that you, swearing??????

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

You should have thought about that before you ran out on your wife and kid,how many Happy Christmas's did he have with you...none...they were all better without you.

You really know little to nothing about me and my family but I do indeed regret my Christmas' past.

 

[hvp05]

I believe that what I said was that you make ridiculous assertions and then formulate a question out of that assertion and thereby I have nothing to reply.

I will not get into a shooting match (typical term softened for your delicate sensibilities) with you on this. Anyone who can read and comprehend English can see whose beliefs are reasoned and sound. So, posted again for everyone's reading pleasure...


- - - - - - - - -

Jimmy, I appreciate that you responded to my last post so promptly - especially when you so often ignore my confronting your inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Now down to business...

It is because I have to tell things in short post while the story covers some 15 years of child support. Of course I could try to write a year by year autobiography but I say not.

The above still does not explain the inconsistency between your recollections of your history. You can potentially give a short paragraph synopsis and still be just as accurate as relaying a year-by-year account, which I would not care to read anyhow.

To somdprincess's question, "Since both of you had the child, and you left why was it only up to the mother to take care of the child?" you replied, "It was the law that got in the way. I was happy to help with my son, but I was not and still am not happy with being violently robbed." (Original post.) I then proceeded - by recalling your words in this post - to remind you that you previously had said that the law was not even involved in your case for more than two (2) years after you had left town of your own free will. In fact, your wife had refused any legal intervention, for some reason. Only after you refused to pay your child his due support, did the law take what had been ordered; if you had had legitimate trouble paying you should have brought that to the court's attention instead of waiting until you were put into a corner and trying to wriggle free. (You know this to be true; I just want to update everyone - especially those who may still give you an ounce of credit.)

It is not an accident that the law interferes and destroys the family unit because it is designed that way.

Wow, that's quite a revelation. So the majority of non-custodials who pay their support and whose families turn out fine are actually a mistake and not the intended result of the child support system?

The poorer and working poor and lower class parents that need our help the most are not competant to get legal help or to help themselves.

Do your poor friends know you think they are "not competent"? For a Democrat who should be playing to the poor for votes, you're not doing a very good job. (But that is typical of you to insult your voting public and potential future constituents.)

Then the smarter ones turn to crime as I had to do, and I still say that defying the thieves is better then serving them.

This should be another campaign slogan of yours: Instead of paying one's responsibilities, those who feel victimized by life should resort to crime because it is the "smarter" thing to do. I foresee that working very well for you - certainly can't hurt you any worse than you already have been.

But I am NOT running for election nor basing any of my positions based on my own past history.

You're not? Then why did you say this...

I went to Court... and got immediately thrown into jail... I lost my rent and got out homeless in my car and they took me back to Court and put me back in jail again 179 days... ordered me to pay while homeless and jobless and about to freeze to death. I was thereafter at war with the dirty thievery of child support.

Seems pretty clear to me that not only some, but all of your current efforts against the child support system are based on your own experiences.

Of course, that's just your own words talking, and I'm sure you will tell us we can not trust such a fraudulent source.

That being like a reformed addict that now preaches the evils there-of does sound like me.

"Like" an addict? I think your narcotics cases and Dupuytren's contracture - caused by excessive alcohol - speak well enough about that. And everything you say here indicates how much you have "reformed".

Since Hoyer is so rich then it is better for me to stay low key and just stand on a simple message. "Pro-Life Cusick verses abortion-boy Hoyer".

So you have once again flipped your position from one week ago, when you said this...

... the report was light and easy to my position, and it did not exagerate the pro-life too much either so it made me sound like the best candidate of them all.

My words were written to you and about your children's mom, link HERE.

I did not say it about other situations.

Why have you chosen to - again - attack the messenger (TP)? So much for your self-proported conviction about attacking ONLY the message.

And it goes to you pushing or pressuring your new replacement wife / mother too.

Again attacking TP. Can you link to a post (posted prior to yesterday) where TP even remotely mentioned his current marriage? I can't recall one, so maybe you can show me where you got all your information.

Being the "lesser vessal" only means that the females are not as physically large as the male.

The woman is the lesser vessal so that if we push them then they break. Put pressure on and they fold. It is not their weakness - it represents their value

So, in your belief system, women have a lesser "value" because they are "not as physically large as the male"? I still fail to see the connection... but I guess that's why I'm not a misogynist.

Well I stand by everything

That's right, buddy! You stand against all those nasty facts, credibility, and reliability, no matter how hard or how many people prove you wrong and inconsequential!

It works for me and I like my stance quite well as that is why I keep repeating it. The fact that it might irritate you does gives it an extra flavor to my joy.

So you like being proven wrong and inconsistent. Why do you so enjoy being beaten? I already know why you find joy in irritating others, as that is a classic trait of the sociopath, so I won't further address that.

I do not believe you know what that word means, and not dictionary meaning but in application here.

This just made me laugh. The only person that reads or follows the "JPC Dictionary" is...

you.

In my opinion and beliefs then I judge for myself if the info is acceptable or not so I do not put any trust in any thing outside of my own decisions.

I see. How's that working out for you?




Oh, completely downhill... you don't say.

So now if I hear a true statement from a weak source then I accept the truth without accepting the source.

Or you attack the source - as you have recently done with TP, or you entirely ignore the source, as you do with most people who offer you the occasional pesky fact.


Well, this has been quite a mammoth post! You said you read all the posts in your threads... but will you respond in any real form?

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

Which brings me back to my question; why don't you run for a state position (again) so that you would be in a position to affect change?

Because I am only one person and I can only run for one position and this is it.

Plus this is the Presedential election year so MD State offices are not even available to run for now.

And the US Congress is only 2 years which means I still could run for a State position if I win this election.

So if you believe you know better then you are free to run for election yourself.

 

[This_person]

Because I am only one person and I can only run for one position and this is it.

Plus this is the Presedential election year so MD State offices are not even available to run for now.

And the US Congress is only 2 years which means I still could run for a State position if I win this election.

So if you believe you know better then you are free to run for election yourself.

This thread is not about me. It's about your run for House of Representatives. You began this thread by discussing that your one issue you wished to bring up with voters is abortion.

Of course you cannot run for more than one position, you're not Lieberman. Of course MD elections are not now. Neither of these things is pertinent to the question.

I believe you are wasting people's time because you wish to discuss things you won't have any authority over. Do you see my point? If you want this job, be honest and try and get it. Abortion is not the issue for you to run on, because there's nothing a Representative can do regarding abortion.

Child support is not the issue to run on because there is nothing a representative can do about child support.

Local infrastructure is not the issue to run on because there is virtually nothing you can do about that other than take people's jobs. You won't win with that as your campaign motto.

These are state issues. If you want to be a Representative, you must think and act like a Representative. Think about issues that reflect upon the job. Steny was recently attacked as one of the top 10 worst pork getters in the House - go after that. We're all fiscal conservatives at voting time! Pick an issue that fits the job, and you may actually have a chance!

 

[hvp05]

Is that you, swearing??????

Hmm, he did say...

And the mis-use of profanity on this board will never be condoned by me.

I do not answer that one because he keeps putting those innitials of profanity and I just can not deal with a pervert.

JPC, are you admitting to be a pervert? And why did you avert the censors, as you accused MMDad of doing, by spacing out the letters?

 

[Giantone]

I believe that what I said was that you make ridiculous assertions and then formulate a question out of that assertion and thereby I have nothing to reply.

I write what I mean and I mean what I write, and not some twisted interpretations.

Like the incompetant type question below. If you want to be respected and taken seriously then you must rise to the occassion.

LOL..........do ever read what you write???

Nobody ....and I mean nobody respects you! Shut up stupid,you're an idiot.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

LOL..........do ever read what you write???

Nobody ....and I mean nobody respects you! Shut up stupid,you're an idiot.

My point is that I feel it is my place to always respect others.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

You can do a sign that says "Pro-life, but don't support the offspring." You could spray paint it on the district court!

It turns out that it is a form to fill out and not a live interview.

Below is a copy of the email (some parts censored by "x" by me) :
====================

Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:33:43 PM
Subject: February 2008 Primary Election candidate letter

A copy of this letter was sent today to the address you provided to the registrar. Please look for it in the U.S. mail. Please take a moment to read the letter below.

The Washington Post
1150 15TH STREET N. W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20071-7403


►►► DON’T MISS YOUR DEADLINE – Friday, Dec. 21 at midnight◄◄◄


December 10, 2007

Dear Candidate:

The Washington Post will publish Voters Guides for the upcoming primary election online at www.washingtonpost.com/mdelections and in the Extra section of the newspaper. These guides will offer our readers stories about the races and candidate biographies based on the information you provide. We would like to include your photo and answers to a few questions.

How do I respond? The information must be provided online through a secure Web site we’ve set up for candidates. Log on to: vg.washpost.com (DO NOT type www before the address). You will be prompted on the first screen to enter a password.

Your unique password is: (Your individual password is provided in the letter sent to the address you provided to the registrar.)

What will I be asked? You’ll be asked some basic background information, plus the answers to two questions about election issues. The information you submit may be edited to conform to Washington Post style guidelines.

How long will it take? Most candidates say it takes around 30 minutes to complete the online survey.

How do I submit my photo? Upload your photo through the Web site by clicking the button that says, “upload photo.” Your image should be a JPEG with a resolution of 170 dpi or greater. If it is a lower resolution than 170 dpi we cannot publish the image. You can also e-mail your photo to xxxxx@ xxxxxx.com. If you do not have a digital image, please contact us at xxxxx@ xxxxxxxxx.com.

What is my deadline? Please respond as soon as possible. All responses must be received no later than midnight Friday, Dec. 21. Your profile will be posted online as of Wednesday, Jan. 9. at www.washingtonpost.com/mdelections. The printed Voters Guide will appear in The Post the Thursday before the election.

Who do I contact if I have questions? For questions about what will appear in print, call xxxxxx xxxxxxxx, Voters Guide coordinator, at xxx-xxx-xxxx or email xxx@ xxxxxxxx.com. For questions about the online publication at www.washingtonpost.com/mdelections, please send an email to xxxxxxxx@ xxxxxxxxxxx.com.

Thank you for participating.

I have received the mail with the password and I plan to fill out the questions on next working day - Monday.

 

[Giantone]

My point is that I feel it is my place to always respect others.

sure...........you just didn't respect your wife and son.

 

[Giantone]

I will not get into a shooting match (typical term softened for your delicate sensibilities) with you on this. Anyone who can read and comprehend English can see whose beliefs are reasoned and sound. So, posted again for everyone's reading pleasure...


- - - - - - - - -

Jimmy, I appreciate that you responded to my last post so promptly - especially when you so often ignore my confronting your inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Now down to business...
The above still does not explain the inconsistency between your recollections of your history. You can potentially give a short paragraph synopsis and still be just as accurate as relaying a year-by-year account, which I would not care to read anyhow.

To somdprincess's question, "Since both of you had the child, and you left why was it only up to the mother to take care of the child?" you replied, "It was the law that got in the way. I was happy to help with my son, but I was not and still am not happy with being violently robbed." (Original post.) I then proceeded - by recalling your words in this post - to remind you that you previously had said that the law was not even involved in your case for more than two (2) years after you had left town of your own free will. In fact, your wife had refused any legal intervention, for some reason. Only after you refused to pay your child his due support, did the law take what had been ordered; if you had had legitimate trouble paying you should have brought that to the court's attention instead of waiting until you were put into a corner and trying to wriggle free. (You know this to be true; I just want to update everyone - especially those who may still give you an ounce of credit.)


Wow, that's quite a revelation. So the majority of non-custodials who pay their support and whose families turn out fine are actually a mistake and not the intended result of the child support system?


Do your poor friends know you think they are "not competent"? For a Democrat who should be playing to the poor for votes, you're not doing a very good job. (But that is typical of you to insult your voting public and potential future constituents.)


This should be another campaign slogan of yours: Instead of paying one's responsibilities, those who feel victimized by life should resort to crime because it is the "smarter" thing to do. I foresee that working very well for you - certainly can't hurt you any worse than you already have been.


You're not? Then why did you say this...Seems pretty clear to me that not only some, but all of your current efforts against the child support system are based on your own experiences.

Of course, that's just your own words talking, and I'm sure you will tell us we can not trust such a fraudulent source.


"Like" an addict? I think your narcotics cases and Dupuytren's contracture - caused by excessive alcohol - speak well enough about that. And everything you say here indicates how much you have "reformed".


So you have once again flipped your position from one week ago, when you said this...


Why have you chosen to - again - attack the messenger (TP)? So much for your self-proported conviction about attacking ONLY the message.


Again attacking TP. Can you link to a post (posted prior to yesterday) where TP even remotely mentioned his current marriage? I can't recall one, so maybe you can show me where you got all your information.


So, in your belief system, women have a lesser "value" because they are "not as physically large as the male"? I still fail to see the connection... but I guess that's why I'm not a misogynist.


That's right, buddy! You stand against all those nasty facts, credibility, and reliability, no matter how hard or how many people prove you wrong and inconsequential!


So you like being proven wrong and inconsistent. Why do you so enjoy being beaten? I already know why you find joy in irritating others, as that is a classic trait of the sociopath, so I won't further address that.


This just made me laugh. The only person that reads or follows the "JPC Dictionary" is...

you.


I see. How's that working out for you?




Oh, completely downhill... you don't say.


Or you attack the source - as you have recently done with TP, or you entirely ignore the source, as you do with most people who offer you the occasional pesky fact.


Well, this has been quite a mammoth post! You said you read all the posts in your threads... but will you respond in any real form?

Great post!!!

 

[hvp05]

My point is that I feel it is my place to always respect others.

In what magical fairly land does this place exist? Because certainly it does not exist in reality.

Maybe you would "respect" someone who does not disagree with you or prove you habitually wrong, but I don't think we have ever seen such a person around these parts.

Let's examine Candidate Cusick's idea of "respect[ing] others"...


Insulting This_person; I think you could randomly stumble into a pile of these in any given JPC thread on the board...

That dog T_p might have preached what "Roberta" meant since the dog claims to know it all...

That dog and his kind will only attack the messangers while the message is what matters.

(Nice irony in the second line, too. )

And another...

That ungrateful scoundrel that betrayed his family by giving their mom over to the evil gov and slanders her to the children.

Insulting MMDad because he used the nasty acronym "TTFN", which means "ta ta for now"...

You can claim the letters stand for anything, but a dirty mouth gives us dirty words.

And JPC's crowning triumph: insulting godsbutterfly for the heinous act of accepting child support...

You having the 3 "wonderful children" means you have the prize, you have the man's children, and you hold them captive like kidnapped prisoners so the dad must pay you child support cash or else he never sees his wonderful children again.

You are a kid-napper demanding ransom money and the unjust laws empower that wrong doing.

GB recounted this and other vile, baseless assaults here.

I have some examples for you of how JPC name-called and taunted me.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

sure...........you just didn't respect your wife and son.

There is a lot of truth in that as I was not a nice husband or father.

It took me years of regret and remorse before I could start to repent and try to make ammends for my own wrongs.

So what I meant was that I now today feel that I must now respect all others as I use to not feel that way.

It is true that I use to be a very disrepectful person.

 

[hvp05]

It took me years of regret and remorse before I could start to repent and try to make ammends for my own wrongs.

I would think, if you were truly working to 'make amends' for being a crappy father yourself, that you would respect and support fathers and mothers who do unlike yourself and actually support their child[ren].

Instead, you insult them for requesting [from the other parent] the things their child[ren] deserves. Why is that?

It is true that I use to be a very disrepectful person.

Since you are a certifiable sociopath, even on your nicest days, you are rather despicable compared to normal, mentally-stable people.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

In what magical fairly land does this place exist? Because certainly it does not exist in reality.

Maybe you would "respect" someone who does not disagree with you or prove you habitually wrong, but I don't think we have ever seen such a person around these parts.

It appears to me that "hvp" just does not quite know what respect is.

Let's examine Candidate Cusick's idea of "respect[ing] others"...

Insulting This_person; I think you could randomly stumble into a pile of these in any given JPC thread on the board...(Nice irony in the second line, too. )

And another...

Insulting MMDad because he used the nasty acronym "TTFN", which means "ta ta for now"...

And JPC's crowning triumph: insulting godsbutterfly for the heinous act of accepting child support...
GB recounted this and other vile, baseless assaults here.

Telling a poster that slander is wrong and inappropriate, correcting wrong or slanderous postings / posters, resisting the mis-use of profanity on this Forum, telling custodial parents that the child support is stolen money which it is, none of this is being disrespectful.

It is not correct in seeing negative comments as being disrespectful because it is not.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

I would think, if you were truly working to 'make amends' for being a crappy father yourself, that you would respect and support fathers and mothers who do unlike yourself and actually support their child[ren].

Instead, you insult them for requesting [from the other parent] the things their child[ren] deserves. Why is that?

See that is setting up the question inappropriately.

The first sentence is telling the separated parents to pay the c/s thievery,

while the second sentence is refering to those custodials that receive the stolen money,

as if the two equal the same question and they do not.

I am not trying to make any ammends of mine to the dirty thievery of child support.

Since you are a certifiable sociopath, even on your nicest days, you are rather despicable compared to normal, mentally-stable people.

Mr. Psychiatrist "hvp" is one of those nasty normal people.

 

[MMDad]

Mr. Psychiatrist "hvp" is one of those nasty normal people.

Will you release your mental health records so that the electorate can make an informed choice?

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

Will you release your mental health records so that the electorate can make an informed choice?

I do not have any "mental health records" to release.

I do not have a mental illness and I do not take any medications for mental illness either.

So I have no record to release.

 

[smcop]

The Washington Post has contacted me wanting to arrainge and interview for their upcoming "Voters Guide" so I am anxious about this coming up.

Now the reporter is to call me at some unspecified time.

I figure that I better stick to pro-life and say little about any other topic.

So does not that sound best?

Will you talk at all about your criminal record? Will you talk about your loving family life? Will you discuss any criminal records of your children?