Jessica’s law would be a state law, passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor. A member of Congress–Niki, if elected–would ahve nothing to do with passing or opposing this measure. Why then ask the question?
hrs-kevinsays
schoolzombie87says
I didn't ask if she would “vote for” or “vote against” Jessica's Law. I just asked if she would “support” Jessica's Law. HUGE difference.
I just want to get an idea of where Niki stands on some issues before I vote. That's all.
. . . the question would have been if elected would you file a federal version of Jessica’s Law. If you were serious.
schoolzombie87says
That is why I am going to use your wording.
<
p>
Thanks for your help.
hrs-kevinsays
At this point, Tsongas would be very foolish to respond to an obvious troll.
<
p>
However, perhaps you can redeem yourself by discussing in some detail what you think about Jessica’s Law. Pros and Cons.
schoolzombie87says
According to Niki, Blue Mass group is her “official blog”
I am just asking a question. That's all.
frankskeffingtonsays
she is running for. The stupidity of your question is written on your face in the picture you provided us.
<
p>
Even if this is her “official” blog, you asked a stupid question that warrants no answer…troll or no troll.
hrs-kevinsays
“Official” blog or not, why should anyone bother to answer a question from an obvious troll, especially one that is too lazy to post more than a sentence or two at a time.
frankskeffingtonsays
,,,to bad you don’t know how to read yourself…where in my post did I say “vote for” or “vote against” Jessica’s Law. Neither of us used those words. Apparently you are stupidier than you look in the picture.
p>
1. Get Mozilla Firefox
2. Right click on the picture of SZ
3. Select “block images from static.flickr….”
<
p>
(Okay, you can’t see any images from flickr.com , but it’s still worth it.)
rajsays
From the post If elected will you (Niki) support Jessica’s Law?
<
p>
From the comment I didn’t ask if she would “vote for” or “vote against” Jessica’s Law. I just asked if she would “support” Jessica’s Law.
<
p>
Why would her election hinge on whether she, if she was to be elected, would support, or refuse to support, a “Jessica’s Law” in some jurisdiction?
<
p>
You continue to make no sense whatsoever.
schoolzombie87says
I just want to know (IF she had the opportunity) would she support Jessica’s Law. That’s all.
<
p>
All I’m doing is asking a question.
rajsays
…the issue wasn’t whether your question was a hypothetical. The issue is why you hinged the issue on whether or not she was elected, as you stated it earlier. You really should learn to distinguish between the latter and the former.
<
p>
And you really should learn to use consistent language. You have now changed the issue yet again.
schoolzombie87says
or better yet I’ll use Striker57’s wording. This way if you have a beef you can take it up with Striker.
Jessica’s law would be a state law, passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor. A member of Congress–Niki, if elected–would ahve nothing to do with passing or opposing this measure. Why then ask the question?
I didn't ask if she would “vote for” or “vote against” Jessica's Law. I just asked if she would “support” Jessica's Law. HUGE difference.
I just want to get an idea of where Niki stands on some issues before I vote. That's all.
. . . the question would have been if elected would you file a federal version of Jessica’s Law. If you were serious.
That is why I am going to use your wording.
<
p>
Thanks for your help.
At this point, Tsongas would be very foolish to respond to an obvious troll.
<
p>
However, perhaps you can redeem yourself by discussing in some detail what you think about Jessica’s Law. Pros and Cons.
According to Niki, Blue Mass group is her “official blog”
I am just asking a question. That's all.
she is running for. The stupidity of your question is written on your face in the picture you provided us.
<
p>
Even if this is her “official” blog, you asked a stupid question that warrants no answer…troll or no troll.
“Official” blog or not, why should anyone bother to answer a question from an obvious troll, especially one that is too lazy to post more than a sentence or two at a time.
,,,to bad you don’t know how to read yourself…where in my post did I say “vote for” or “vote against” Jessica’s Law. Neither of us used those words. Apparently you are stupidier than you look in the picture.
How to answer this question:
<
p>
1. Get Mozilla Firefox
2. Right click on the picture of SZ
3. Select “block images from static.flickr….”
<
p>
(Okay, you can’t see any images from flickr.com , but it’s still worth it.)
From the post If elected will you (Niki) support Jessica’s Law?
<
p>
From the comment I didn’t ask if she would “vote for” or “vote against” Jessica’s Law. I just asked if she would “support” Jessica’s Law.
<
p>
Why would her election hinge on whether she, if she was to be elected, would support, or refuse to support, a “Jessica’s Law” in some jurisdiction?
<
p>
You continue to make no sense whatsoever.
I just want to know (IF she had the opportunity) would she support Jessica’s Law. That’s all.
<
p>
All I’m doing is asking a question.
…the issue wasn’t whether your question was a hypothetical. The issue is why you hinged the issue on whether or not she was elected, as you stated it earlier. You really should learn to distinguish between the latter and the former.
<
p>
And you really should learn to use consistent language. You have now changed the issue yet again.
or better yet I’ll use Striker57’s wording. This way if you have a beef you can take it up with Striker.