military supports kaepernick

[mog...@hotmail.com]

NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick
Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017

-- https://sports.yahoo.com/nypd-officers-take-knee-support-colin-kaepernick-still-looking-nfl-job-215636166.html

[Breezy Eason ... American Flag Waver]

Dumb Ass! ... header is misleading ... should read ... "a small minority of Negro NYPD Officers take knee to support a fellow Negro who is now Unemployed for Disrespecting his country and shaming his employer who he worked for!"

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-7, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
> NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick
> Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017
>
> -- https://sports.yahoo.com/nypd-officers-take-knee-support-colin-kaepernick-still-looking-nfl-job-215636166.html

Trump Wants 'Son of a Bitch' NFL Players Fired But Colin Kaepernick — And His Mom — Are Fighting Back
Newsweek - 1 day ago

-- http://www.newsweek.com/trump-wants-nfl-police-brutality-protesters-colin-kaepernick-sacked-heres-670001
----------------------

Trump has deliberately targeted black "...civilians who did not take up arms." (as the 1700's theorist Emer de Vattel used the term).
--------------

Why “The Decent One”: Heinrich Himmler, Family Man' Is The Most Haunting Documentary I've Ever Seen
3QuarksDaily - Oct 4, 2014

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Fred Oinka <oi...@gop.net> wrote:
>On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 3:22:38 PM UTC-4, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:10:49 AM UTC-4, bookoflife.org wrote:
>> > yeah baby all the way , here in la la land, copies are CIAies and very badies
>>
>> Colin Kaepernick: “First of all, I want people to understand I love the military ... "
>>
>> -- http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/america-turmoil-year-kaepernicks-protest-49322674
>
>NFL is DONE.
>When you disrespect the flag that so many came home draped in,
>you lose.
>Watch and see.

HA!! HAAA!! You're Crazy:

How The NFL Makes The Most Money Of Any Pro Sport
CNBC - September 4, 2014
"Even though the NFL is the highest-grossing sport league in the world, the NFL continually makes moves in order to reach Commissioner Goodell's ambitious goal of $25 billion in revenue ..."

-- https://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/04/how-the-nfl-makes-the-most-money-of-any-pro-sport.html

[RichA]

Not NYPD, or the military. BLACKS.

[suzeeq]

I saw a lot of white NFL players kneeling before the first game today.
And their coaches.

[Obveeus]

The kneeling in the NFL just turned from a 'Black Lives Matter' protest
into an anti-Trump protest. Likely, it will never go back to the
original message now.

Meanwhile, the Pittburgh Penguins (a team with no black players and
mostly filled with foreigners) has accepted their invitation to the
White House while the Golden State Warriors (a team of mostly black
American players) was uninvited for being uppity towards Trump.

Sports personalities are quickly overtaking 'entertainment
personalities' as those most vocal about politics.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Wrong. I saw where others include family members of women in general who've been assaulted by guilty but never-punished men.

The media repros don't lie. Its just you.

[BTR1701]

In article <oq8r88$gnp$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> On 9/24/2017 1:29 PM, suzeeq wrote:

> > RichA wrote:

> >> On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 17:00:12 UTC-4, mog...@hotmail.com  wrote:

> >>> NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick

> >>> Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017

> >> Not NYPD, or the military. BLACKS.
> >
> > I saw a lot of white NFL players kneeling before the first game today.
> > And their coaches.
>
> The kneeling in the NFL just turned from a 'Black Lives Matter' protest
> into an anti-Trump protest. Likely, it will never go back to the
> original message now.

So they sit during the anthem to get attention from those who object,
then complain when they get exactly what they wanted.

> Meanwhile, the Pittburgh Penguins (a team with no black players and
> mostly filled with foreigners) has accepted their invitation to the
> White House while the Golden State Warriors (a team of mostly black
> American players) was uninvited for being uppity towards Trump.
>
> Sports personalities are quickly overtaking 'entertainment
> personalities' as those most vocal about politics.

Award show ratings are garbage. NFL ratings are garbage. And all they
can think of is "We're not being political enough."

When you insert politics into your sport don't be pissed when
politicians and other people speak back. What Trump said was
inappropriate. However, you guys made it political, so he can have an
opinion.

[suzeeq]

Obveeus wrote:
>
> On 9/24/2017 1:29 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> RichA wrote:

>>> On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 17:00:12 UTC-4, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick
>>>> Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> https://sports.yahoo.com/nypd-officers-take-knee-support-colin-kaepernick-still-looking-nfl-job-215636166.html
>>>>

>>> Not NYPD, or the military. BLACKS.

>> I saw a lot of white NFL players kneeling before the first game today.
>> And their coaches.
>
> The kneeling in the NFL just turned from a 'Black Lives Matter' protest
> into an anti-Trump protest. Likely, it will never go back to the
> original message now.
>
> Meanwhile, the Pittburgh Penguins (a team with no black players and
> mostly filled with foreigners) has accepted their invitation to the
> White House while the Golden State Warriors (a team of mostly black
> American players) was uninvited for being uppity towards Trump.

No, 1 player was uninvited and the rest of the team declined.

> Sports personalities are quickly overtaking 'entertainment
> personalities' as those most vocal about politics.

Good. That'll send a message to Trump supporters where they wouldn't
listen to entertainment personalities.

[mog...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 2:34:44 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <oq8r88$gnp$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 9/24/2017 1:29 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>
> > > RichA wrote:
>
> > >> On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 17:00:12 UTC-4, mog...@hotmail.com  wrote:
>
> > >>> NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick
>
> > >>> Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017
>
> > >> Not NYPD, or the military. BLACKS.
> > >
> > > I saw a lot of white NFL players kneeling before the first game today.
> > > And their coaches.
> >
> > The kneeling in the NFL just turned from a 'Black Lives Matter' protest
> > into an anti-Trump protest. Likely, it will never go back to the
> > original message now.
>
> So they sit during the anthem to get attention from those who object,
> then complain when they get exactly what they wanted.
>
> > Meanwhile, the Pittburgh Penguins (a team with no black players and
> > mostly filled with foreigners) has accepted their invitation to the
> > White House while the Golden State Warriors (a team of mostly black
> > American players) was uninvited for being uppity towards Trump.
> >
> > Sports personalities are quickly overtaking 'entertainment
> > personalities' as those most vocal about politics.
>
> Award show ratings are garbage. NFL ratings are garbage.

Compared to what industry? Big oil, porn or the illegal or perscription drug industries?
You aren't really saying anything.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq8u45$5io$1...@news.albasani.net>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

Uh ... it will? Why would you listen to a second group of drooling
morons when you wouldn't listen to a first group of drooling morons?

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[EGK]

What always makes me laugh is how rich celebrities and now rich athletes act
like they're down with the people. They're always ranting about the rich
and pampered when they ARE the rich and pampered.

[suzeeq]

Maybe. I just thought the right wingers are more apt to be watching NFL
than Dancing with the Stars or whatever.

[FPP]

On 9/24/17 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <oq8r88$gnp$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2017 1:29 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>
>>> RichA wrote:
>

>>>> On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 17:00:12 UTC-4, mog...@hotmail.com  wrote:
>
>>>>> NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick
>
>>>>> Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017
>

>>>> Not NYPD, or the military. BLACKS.

>>>
>>> I saw a lot of white NFL players kneeling before the first game today.
>>> And their coaches.
>>
>> The kneeling in the NFL just turned from a 'Black Lives Matter' protest
>> into an anti-Trump protest. Likely, it will never go back to the
>> original message now.
>
> So they sit during the anthem to get attention from those who object,
> then complain when they get exactly what they wanted.
>
>> Meanwhile, the Pittburgh Penguins (a team with no black players and
>> mostly filled with foreigners) has accepted their invitation to the
>> White House while the Golden State Warriors (a team of mostly black
>> American players) was uninvited for being uppity towards Trump.
>>
>> Sports personalities are quickly overtaking 'entertainment
>> personalities' as those most vocal about politics.
>
> Award show ratings are garbage. NFL ratings are garbage. And all they
> can think of is "We're not being political enough."
>
> When you insert politics into your sport don't be pissed when
> politicians and other people speak back. What Trump said was
> inappropriate. However, you guys made it political, so he can have an
> opinion.

More excuses for a poor excuse for a human being, BY a poor excuse for a
human being.
No surprise here.
--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins

[FPP]

Careful, there, anim... you're dangerously close to denigrating groups
that aren't 100% female.

[FPP]

Yeah... because when I think of athletes, I always think of "pampered".

Because what they do can be done by anybody with money and privilege...
except for all that physical stuff.

[Breezy Eason]

It's always nice ... when your "Mom" supports you ... even when you're acting like a spoiled Brat ... eh brucie?

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq92lu$pe9$1...@news.albasani.net>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

But hopefully they realize the NFL players are like Kim Basinger.

[BTR1701]

<mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 2:34:44 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>>

>> Award show ratings are garbage. NFL ratings are garbage. And all they
>> can think of is "We're not being political enough."
>

> Compared to what industry? Big oil, porn or the illegal or perscription drug industries?
> You aren't really saying anything.

Compared to their own history, you rancid piece of lint.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Does also it make you laugh when conservatives are always blatantly LYING to the people and trying to deny the people new infrastructure?

[Obveeus]

On 9/24/2017 2:39 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> Obveeus wrote:
>>
>> On 9/24/2017 1:29 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> RichA wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 17:00:12 UTC-4, mog...@hotmail.comÂ
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick
>>>>> Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> https://sports.yahoo.com/nypd-officers-take-knee-support-colin-kaepernick-still-looking-nfl-job-215636166.html
>>>>>
>>>> Not NYPD, or the military.  BLACKS.
>>> I saw a lot of white NFL players kneeling before the first game
>>> today. And their coaches.
>>
>> The kneeling in the NFL just turned from a 'Black Lives Matter'
>> protest into an anti-Trump protest.  Likely, it will never go back to
>> the original message now.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the Pittburgh Penguins (a team with no black players and
>> mostly filled with foreigners) has accepted their invitation to the
>> White House while the Golden State Warriors (a team of mostly black
>> American players) was uninvited for being uppity towards Trump.
>
>
> No, 1 player was uninvited and the rest of the team declined.

No. One player declined, the rest of the team was undecided. Trump
recinded the invitation to the team as near as I can tell from his
remark. The team has not made a group decision on anything yet, since
they have not met as planned to do so.

>> Sports personalities are quickly overtaking 'entertainment
>> personalities' as those most vocal about politics.
>
> Good. That'll send a message to Trump supporters where they wouldn't
> listen to entertainment personalities.

A bunch of rich black guys are not going to send a message that would be
heard by Trump supporters. While there might be some trump supporters
watching professional basketball, they certainly aren't the ones doing
it while looking up to the black players in the game.

Meanwhile, over in the NFL, the intended message has now become buried
in a pro-Trump / anti-trump divide that had nothing to do with the
original act of 'protest'. We can thank the TV media for much of that
(they certainly haven't worked to keep the two issues separate)...and
Trump himself for the rest of that (he isn't supposed to be making any
statements at all about which American companies the citizens should be
patronizing) because he managed to get the press to make this story
about him instead of about perceived police violence patterns.

[suzeeq]

Obveeus wrote:
>
> On 9/24/2017 2:39 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> Obveeus wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2017 1:29 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> RichA wrote:

>>>>> On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 17:00:12 UTC-4, mog...@hotmail.comÂ

>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>> Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> https://sports.yahoo.com/nypd-officers-take-knee-support-colin-kaepernick-still-looking-nfl-job-215636166.html
>>>>>>

>>>>> Not NYPD, or the military. BLACKS.

>>>> I saw a lot of white NFL players kneeling before the first game
>>>> today. And their coaches.
>>> The kneeling in the NFL just turned from a 'Black Lives Matter'

>>> protest into an anti-Trump protest. Likely, it will never go back to

It's always about him... even when it shouldn't be.

[BTR1701]

In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which

> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)

Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about which
businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored a law that
*forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.

[FPP]

Such as? Which particular companies?

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

FPP wrote:
>On 9/24/17 8:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which
>>> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)
>>
>> Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about which
>> businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored a law that
>> *forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.
>
>Such as? Which particular companies?

<< Damn. The silence. Damn, damn, damn. >>

[trotsky]

On 9/24/17 1:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <oq8r88$gnp$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2017 1:29 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>
>>> RichA wrote:
>

>>>> On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 17:00:12 UTC-4, mog...@hotmail.com  wrote:
>
>>>>> NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick
>
>>>>> Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017
>

>>>> Not NYPD, or the military. BLACKS.

>>>
>>> I saw a lot of white NFL players kneeling before the first game today.
>>> And their coaches.
>>
>> The kneeling in the NFL just turned from a 'Black Lives Matter' protest
>> into an anti-Trump protest. Likely, it will never go back to the
>> original message now.
>
> So they sit during the anthem to get attention from those who object,
> then complain when they get exactly what they wanted.
>
>> Meanwhile, the Pittburgh Penguins (a team with no black players and
>> mostly filled with foreigners) has accepted their invitation to the
>> White House while the Golden State Warriors (a team of mostly black
>> American players) was uninvited for being uppity towards Trump.
>>
>> Sports personalities are quickly overtaking 'entertainment
>> personalities' as those most vocal about politics.
>
> Award show ratings are garbage. NFL ratings are garbage. And all they
> can think of is "We're not being political enough."
>
> When you insert politics into your sport don't be pissed when
> politicians and other people speak back. What Trump said was
> inappropriate. However, you guys made it political, so he can have an
> opinion.

It's a little more complicated than that, so I'm not surprised you're
confused. Apparently the NFL made it a requirement to have the players
on the field during the NA in 2009. Wanna guess again?

https://twitter.com/GovJVentura/status/912127669004668928

[trotsky]

You're being too nice, that closet homosexual is one of the worst
misogynists I've ever seen.

[trotsky]

Who doesn't think "pampered" when you're faced with the possibility of
ending your life under the effects of CTE?

[trotsky]

I've never heard of rancid lint, so you really aren't saying anything
there, either. QED.

[trotsky]

Oh, I see, and like the case with trying to repeal the ACA, the entire
GOP looked like they had their nuts cut off on that, too?

[trotsky]

Thanny is letting crickets speak for him.

[BTR1701]

In article <oqacn5$ehp$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 9/24/17 8:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which
> >> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)
> >
> > Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about which
> > businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored a law that
> > *forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.
>
> Such as? Which particular companies?

Insurance companies.

[BTR1701]

In article <786yB.106660$xI2....@fx42.iad>,

More like I was sleeping in the middle of the night like normal humans
do, Hutt, you vermicular abscess.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Ah, OK. Sure, right. Seems like you're always mentally sleep, too. Coincidence?

>like normal humans
do,
>Hutt, you vermicular abscess.

No. No 'normal' human lies as much as you and the Trumpers that you 'haven't' been defending.

[moviePig]

I wonder if it's possible to forestall here a dispute over the
difference between 'businesses' as particular companies, and
'businesses' as an industry at large...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[mog...@hotmail.com]

Since I have no measure of associated current multi-national corporate corruption, I probably wouldn't participate. Count me out.

[trotsky]

I'd call you a lying asshole but I don't want to sound redundant.

[FPP]

That's bullshit, and you know it. But it was the response I expected.
Obama never named the companies to patronize.

As always, you had a choice.
As always, you're lying about it.

--
White House: "Don't call it Trumpcare." 3-8-17
"How bad does something have to be, that Donald Trump doesn't want to
put his name on it?" -SNL 3-11-17

[FPP]

Do we not know what the word "particular" refers to, now?
Name the companies Obama told you to patronize.

[RichA]

On Sunday, 24 September 2017 14:09:02 UTC-4, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 17:00:12 UTC-4, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> NYPD Officers Take A Knee To Support Colin Kaepernick
> >> Yahoo Sports - August 19, 2017
> >>

> >> -- https://sports.yahoo.com/nypd-officers-take-knee-support-colin-kaepernick-still-looking-nfl-job-215636166.html
> >
> > Not NYPD, or the military. BLACKS.
>
> Wrong. I saw where others include family members of women in general who've been assaulted by guilty but never-punished men.
>
> The media repros don't lie. Its just you.

Heh heh. Who can claim to have assaulted MORE women on average than a BLACK sports figure!!!?

[RichA]

Cops investigate Kaepernick, others
Apr 10, 2014

ESPN.com news services


San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and two other NFL players are being investigated by Miami police for an incident earlier this month at a Miami hotel.
The 49ers have said they are aware of an investigation involving Colin Kaepernick by Miami police. AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez

Police, contacted on Thursday, confirmed that there is an investigation but would not describe or categorize the exact nature of what they are looking into.

No arrests have been made, and no charges have been filed.

According to an incident report filed with Miami police on Friday, an unnamed woman said she had an encounter with Kaepernick, 49ers wide receiver Quinton Patton and Seattle Seahawks receiver Ricardo Lockette on April 1 at the Viceroy in downtown Miami. The woman told police she spent time with the three players, drinking and smoking marijuana in Lockette's apartment and eventually ending up in a bedroom with Kaepernick.

According to the report, the woman told police she and Kaepernick undressed but did not have sex, and that Kaepernick eventually left the room. The woman also told police, according to the report, that Patton and Lockette later opened the door and "peeked" into the room but closed it and left after the woman told them to get out. She told police she could not remember anything after that.

TMZ.com reported earlier Thursday that Kaepernick is being investigated for an alleged sexual assault, citing law enforcement sources.

Miami Police Department public information officer Rene Pimentel later told the Mercury News that the website "took the report out of context."

In a statement released by the 49ers on Thursday, general manager Trent Baalke said the team was aware of the report and "is in the process of gathering the pertinent facts."

The Seahawks also released a statement Thursday, saying the team was aware of the situation and "is monitoring it closely and will not have any further comment at this time."

[BTR1701]

In article <eeb5e7ab-246f-4c8a...@googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to an incident report filed with Miami police on Friday, an unnamed
> woman said she had an encounter with Kaepernick, 49ers wide receiver Quinton
> Patton and Seattle Seahawks receiver Ricardo Lockette on April 1 at the
> Viceroy in downtown Miami. The woman told police she spent time with the
> three players, drinking and smoking marijuana in Lockette's apartment and
> eventually ending up in a bedroom with Kaepernick.
>
> According to the report, the woman told police she and Kaepernick undressed
> but did not have sex, and that Kaepernick eventually left the room. The woman
> also told police, according to the report, that Patton and Lockette later
> opened the door and "peeked" into the room but closed it and left after the
> woman told them to get out. She told police she could not remember anything
> after that.

If this is the 'victim's' account, why is there even an investigation?
According to her, absolutely nothing investigation-worthy happened.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-858570...@news.giganews.com>,

They smoked the devil's weed. Can't we have him killed for that? Just
for good measure?

[BTR1701]

In article <oqc0nn$r5p$5...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 9/25/17 12:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article <oqacn5$ehp$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/24/17 8:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> >>> In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which
> >>>> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)
> >>>
> >>> Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about which
> >>> businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored a law that
> >>> *forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.
> >>
> >> Such as? Which particular companies?
> >
> > Insurance companies.
>
> Do we not know what the word "particular" refers to, now?

Yes, insurance companies rather than oil companies or shoe companies or
any other type of company. It's particular to insurance companies.
Specifically insurance companies that offer a product that met Obama's
requirements.

[BTR1701]

In article <oqc0kd$r5p$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 9/25/17 12:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article <oqacn5$ehp$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/24/17 8:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> >>> In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which
> >>>> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)
> >>>
> >>> Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about
> >>> which businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored
> >>> a law that *forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.
> >>
> >> Such as? Which particular companies?
> >
> > Insurance companies.
>
> That's bullshit, and you know it. But it was the response I expected.
> Obama never named the companies to patronize.

He didn't have to. His law set requirements and only the companies that
offered products that met those requirements qualified. Those are the
only companies Americans could patronize, and they were forced to
patronize them by the president.

[FPP]

On 9/25/17 7:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <oqc0kd$r5p$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/17 12:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> In article <oqacn5$ehp$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/24/17 8:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>> In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which
>>>>>> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about
>>>>> which businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored
>>>>> a law that *forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.
>>>>
>>>> Such as? Which particular companies?
>>>
>>> Insurance companies.
>>
>> That's bullshit, and you know it. But it was the response I expected.
>> Obama never named the companies to patronize.
>

> He didn't have to...

Thanks for admitting that. It's all I needed to make my point.

[FPP]

So, you once again admit that Obama didn't shill for any particular company.
And establishing requirements is a normal part of regulation.

Like cars that won't explode during a 5 mph crash.
Like cribs that won't strangle the baby in it's sleep.

You know... the nanny state.

[BTR1701]

In article <oqc8n1$bf4$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 9/25/17 7:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article <oqc0kd$r5p$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/25/17 12:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>> In article <oqacn5$ehp$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/24/17 8:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>>>> In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which
> >>>>>> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about
> >>>>> which businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored
> >>>>> a law that *forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.
> >>>>
> >>>> Such as? Which particular companies?
> >>>
> >>> Insurance companies.
> >>
> >> That's bullshit, and you know it. But it was the response I expected.
> >> Obama never named the companies to patronize.
> >

> > He didn't have to. His law set requirements and only the companies
> > that offered products that met those requirements qualified.
> > Those are the only companies Americans could patronize, and they
> > were forced to patronize them by the president.
>

> Thanks for admitting that. It's all I needed to make my point.

Okay. Glad I could help you see the light.

[BTR1701]

In article <oqc8u9$de4$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 9/25/17 7:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article <oqc0nn$r5p$5...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/25/17 12:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>> In article <oqacn5$ehp$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/24/17 8:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>>>> In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which
> >>>>>> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about
> >>>>> which businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored
> >>>>> a law that *forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.
> >>>>
> >>>> Such as? Which particular companies?
> >>>
> >>> Insurance companies.
> >>
> >> Do we not know what the word "particular" refers to, now?
> >
> > Yes, insurance companies rather than oil companies or shoe companies or
> > any other type of company. It's particular to insurance companies.
> > Specifically insurance companies that offer a product that met Obama's
> > requirements.
>
> So, you once again admit that Obama didn't shill for any particular
> company.

Obama shilled for a small handful of particular companies to the
exclusion of all other companies in America. But according to you, it's
okay if it's five or ten companies so long as it's not just one. Yeah,
that makes sense.

> And establishing requirements is a normal part of regulation.

Forcing Americans to buy something from someone else whether they want
to or not is unprecedented in American history.

And please don't bring up car insurance again. I really don't want to
have to go through the tedious process of explaining yet again that one
can choose not to own a car or drive, so one does not have to buy car
insurance.

[RichA]

No matter how much money they have, what social station, blacks are always unable to follow the letter of the law. They invite trouble then get angry when it comes.

[FPP]

Precisely why car insurance is different. You have a choice to drive...
you DON'T have a choice to be born with a pre-existing condition.

And if you are, the law says you have to get healthcare, without paying
for it.
That's unfair to all of the rest of us who have to pay for it.

Requiring health insurance makes the individual responsible for paying
for their own healthcare.
As it should be.

As Republicans were ALL FOR until Obama.
--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins

[FPP]

Oh, go ahead!

[BTR1701]

In article <oqcus0$mt2$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

None of that changes the fact that Obama not only made statements about
which companies Americans should be patronizing, he passed a law forcing
them to.

And it also doesn't change the fact that nothing about Obamacare was
'normal regulation'. Forcing Americans to buy something from someone

[trotsky]

On 9/26/17 2:16 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 9/25/17 5:01 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 9/25/17 11:19 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <786yB.106660$xI2....@fx42.iad>,
>>>   trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/25/17 5:12 AM, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FPP wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/17 8:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which
>>>>>>>> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored a law that
>>>>>>> *forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such as? Which particular companies?
>>>>>
>>>>> << Damn. The silence. Damn, damn, damn. >>
>>>
>>>> Thanny is letting crickets speak for him.
>>>
>>> More like I was sleeping in the middle of the night like normal humans
>>> do, Hutt, you vermicular abscess.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'd call you a lying asshole but I don't want to sound redundant.
>
> Oh, go ahead!
>

You know he's a lying asshole when he cuts and runs to go back to
discussing TV.

[trotsky]

Yes, it totally is unprecedented. That's what made Obama, Pelosi, and
Reid such amazing politicians. Compare and contrast that to the "repeal
and replace" effort from the GOP in their effort to make the Three
Stooges look like MENSA members. LOL!!!

[trotsky]

Yes, and one doesn't have to have medical insurance either if you're
willing to pay the penalty. Your use of the word "force" is
questionable. If it was illegal to not purchase medical insurance that
would be something else entirely.

[FPP]

He did no such thing - and you haven't provided a single shred of evidence.

And it's about fucking time people paid their own way on healthcare.

[FPP]

On 9/26/17 3:43 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

Maybe you should take it to the Supreme Court
Ha-ha-ha-ha...

[FPP]

Like I said... everybody had a choice.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

On 9/26/17 2:16 AM, FPP wrote:

> On 9/25/17 5:01 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 9/25/17 11:19 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <786yB.106660$xI2....@fx42.iad>,
>>> trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/25/17 5:12 AM, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FPP wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/17 8:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> In article <oq9bgo$akv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump isn't supposed to be making any statements at all about which
>>>>>>>> American companies the citizens should be patronizing)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? 'Cause I remember Obama not only making statements about
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> businesses Americans should be patronizing, he sponsored a law that
>>>>>>> *forced* Americans to patronize those businesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such as? Which particular companies?
>>>>>
>>>>> << Damn. The silence. Damn, damn, damn. >>
>>>
>>>> Thanny is letting crickets speak for him.
>>>
>>> More like I was sleeping in the middle of the night like normal humans
>>> do, Hutt, you vermicular abscess.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'd call you a lying asshole but I don't want to sound redundant.
>
> Oh, go ahead!

Ha! With the exception of providing evidence. Notice, he still can't provide you an iota of evidence.

[BTR1701]

In article <oqddqv$s8t$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yeah, just like taxes are voluntary, too! (So long as you're willing to
pay the penalty, that is.)

You and your remora are idiots.

[BTR1701]

In article <oqddpq$s8t$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

I don't have to. I already successfully rebutted your false statement
that Obamacare is an example of 'normal regulation'.

And it's not like the Supreme Court would have any jurisdiction over a
Usenet group discussion anyway, since we're not dealing with matters of
constitutionality, but rather your lack of honesty.

[trotsky]

On 9/26/17 9:47 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <oqddqv$s8t$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/26/17 5:57 AM, trotsky wrote:
>
>>> Yes, and one doesn't have to have medical insurance either if you're
>>> willing to pay the penalty. Your use of the word "force" is
>>> questionable. If it was illegal to not purchase medical insurance that
>>> would be something else entirely.
>>
>> Like I said... everybody had a choice.
>
> Yeah, just like taxes are voluntary, too!

Tax evasion is a criminal offense, counselor. Did you go to Trump U?

[moviePig]

The penalty for no insurance is a scheduled fine. The penalty for tax
evasion is scheduled exercise time in the yard.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[BTR1701]

That's irrelevant to FPP and Hutt's inane "It's not mandatory so long as
you're willing to be sanctioned by the government" legal theory.

[mog...@hotmail.com]

President George W. Bush "eventually sold his stock in Harken on June 22, 1990, sixty-three days after receiving a memo from Harken's president about the company's "liquidity crisis," thirty-five days after receiving another memo from Harken's executive vice president on the "negative repercussions" of a failure to extend corporate loans, fifteen days after receiving a memorandum from Harken's president describing the company as "in jeopardy," eleven days after an audit committee meeting discussing the devaluation of two Harken subsidiaries, and seven days after receiving a letter from Harken's attorneys warning about selling stock based on insider information . . . but a few weeks before the company publicly released bad financial news, causing the stock price to plummet. He then conveniently failed to file notice of these sales with the SEC for eight months. Bush has claimed on different occasions that the SEC lost the forms or that his lawyers forgot to send the forms, finally throwing up his hands in a July 8, 2002, press conference, saying, "As to why the Form 4 was late, I still haven't figured it out completely."

-- https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2007/01/10/the-time-has-come-today/137686

[moviePig]

What's meant by "paying the penalty" seems relevant. One meaning is
(arguably) merely the cost of doing business, with no civil opprobrium
attached. The other is criminal punishment that carries with it
society's vilification. More simply, only one makes you a "bad person".

[FPP]

My comment was to highlight the fact that the ACA has been taken to
SCOTUS over and over again. Your brilliant success, notwithstanding,
the ACA is still with us.

If it were unconstitutional, it wouldn't be.
But don't let that little nugget get in the way of your End Zone Dance.

If nothing else, it's good for a laugh every couple of months.

[FPP]

You're right! We DO have a choice.
Thanks!

[FPP]

Careful, snowflake... looks like you're melting.

[BTR1701]

In article <oqemnt$kme$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 9/26/17 10:49 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article <oqddpq$s8t$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/26/17 3:43 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

> >>> In article <oqcus0$mt2$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >
> >>>> And if you are, the law says you have to get healthcare, without paying
> >>>> for it. That's unfair to all of the rest of us who have to pay for it.
> >>>
> >>> None of that changes the fact that Obama not only made statements about
> >>> which companies Americans should be patronizing, he passed a law forcing
> >>> them to.
> >>>
> >>> And it also doesn't change the fact that nothing about Obamacare was
> >>> 'normal regulation'. Forcing Americans to buy something from someone
> >>> else whether they want to or not is unprecedented in American history.
> >>
> >> Maybe you should take it to the Supreme Court
> >
> > I don't have to. I already successfully rebutted your false statement
> > that Obamacare is an example of 'normal regulation'.
> >
> > And it's not like the Supreme Court would have any jurisdiction over a
> > Usenet group discussion anyway, since we're not dealing with matters of
> > constitutionality, but rather your lack of honesty.
>
> My comment was to highlight the fact that the ACA has been taken to
> SCOTUS over and over again.

And when it was before the Court, the issue wasn't "Is this an example
of normal regulation?", so it's not like the Court answered that
question, notwithstanding the fact that it's not a legal question to
begin with.

> If it were unconstitutional, it wouldn't be.

Where above did I say anything about constitutionality?

[BTR1701]

In article <oqemr3$kme$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 9/26/17 2:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/26/2017 10:47 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>> In article <oqddqv$s8t$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/26/17 5:57 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Yes, and one doesn't have to have medical insurance either if you're
> >>>>> willing to pay the penalty. Your use of the word "force" is
> >>>>> questionable. If it was illegal to not purchase medical insurance that
> >>>>> would be something else entirely.
> >>>>
> >>>> Like I said... everybody had a choice.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, just like taxes are voluntary, too! (So long as you're willing to
> >>> pay the penalty, that is.)
> >>>
> >>> You and your remora are idiots.
> >>
> >> The penalty for no insurance is a scheduled fine. The penalty for tax
> >> evasion is scheduled exercise time in the yard.
> >
> > That's irrelevant to FPP and Hutt's inane "It's not mandatory so long as
> > you're willing to be sanctioned by the government" legal theory.

> Careful, snowflake... looks like you're melting.

And here comes the bluster and puerile name-calling, right on cue.

[FPP]

What the fuck is "normal regulation"? It's not a real political
term... it's something you made up to make it sound like there's
something wrong with it.

As for constitutionality - so long as it's Constitutional, who gives a
shit what you, or anybody else thinks negatively about it.

It's the law of the land... you don't like it, push to get it changed.
How's that going, by the way?

It helped people... millions of them. For some, it kept them, or their
spouse, or a parent, or maybe even a child, from premature death.

Now I know you don't give a shit about that... but some of us actually
care about helping people in need.

Fuck "normal regulation"... it doesn't even exist.

[FPP]

Awww... need to go and visit your "safe space", do you?

[trotsky]

Exactly.

[trotsky]

Oh for fuck's sake, what's a poor remora supposed to think you
hypocritical sack o' shit?

[trotsky]

It seems like a good theory since the GOP seems to want to continue
looking like incompetent assholes in their "efforts" to do something
about it.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Right, that's the point. You use so little logic thay you're not really saying anything.

[BTR1701]

In article <oqful7$7ma$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

> > Where above did I say anything about constitutionality?
>
> What the fuck is "normal regulation"?

You were the first one to bring it up here. You tell me.

> it's something you made up to make it sound like there's
> something wrong with it.

LOL! *You* were the one who brought it into the discussion, idiot.

> As for constitutionality - so long as it's Constitutional, who gives a
> shit what you, or anybody else thinks negatively about it.

Hundreds of posts here in this newsgroup from you say you do.

> It helped people... millions of them. For some, it kept them, or their
> spouse, or a parent, or maybe even a child, from premature death.

None of which has jack all to do with the reason it was brought up in
this thread. Just another one of your patented attempts to change the
subject.

> Fuck "normal regulation"... it doesn't even exist.

Well, you need to go back in time and tell your Monday self that, you
insufferable asshole, because he certainly thought it does.

YOU: And establishing requirements is a normal part of regulation.

[FPP]

Right... which is not the same as "normal regulation", in quotes.
There is such a thing as a normal part of regulation - but no such thing
as "normal regulation".

Kind of like "chicken fried steak" is different from a chicken frying a
steak.

[BTR1701]

In article <oqhca8$5ak$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

Oh. My. God.

[FPP]

Now try it in quotes, and pretend it's something that exists...