Democrat Congresswoman Calls for Prosecution of People Who Mock Members of Congress

[BTR1701]

Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
members of Congress online should face prosecution.

"Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a
disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable
[sic]," Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the
Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, FL.

"We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued. "You cannot
intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is
against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."

ProPublica on Monday publicized posts made by Border Patrol agents in a
private Facebook group that disparaged migrants and some members of
Congress, such as Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Wilson then went on to blame President Trump for causing people to lose
respect for Congress, the media, and the White House.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rep-frederica-wilson-demands-pros
ecution-for-those-who-mock-congress-online

[Adam H. Kerman]

Am I on this list to be prosecuted?

Facebook has been around for decades. Why are people still using
"private" services on Facebook, then horrified to discover that they're
not private in any way? Why does anyone use Facebook at all?

Were the comments at least funny?

[anim8rfsk]

Tue, 02 Jul 2019 16:44:51 -0700 BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
> members of Congress online should face prosecution.
>
> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a
> disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable
> [sic],"

Sounds to me like she accidentally got it right.

> Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the
> Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, FL.
>
> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued. "You cannot
> intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is
> against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."

Is it okay to say she dresses like a clown?

> ProPublica on Monday publicized posts made by Border Patrol agents in a
> private Facebook group that disparaged migrants and some members of
> Congress, such as Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
>
> Wilson then went on to blame President Trump for causing people to lose
> respect for Congress, the media, and the White House.

Look in the mirror sow if you want to know why people have no respect for
you.

> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rep-frederica-wilson-demands-pros
> ecution-for-those-who-mock-congress-online

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

[RichA]

Yes, border patrol agents should be required to LIKE all congresspeople. What the F--- is wrong with these Marxist b------?

[FPP]

On 7/2/19 7:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
> members of Congress online should face prosecution.

Epic. Fail.

"You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of
Congress. It is
against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."

Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor. Ask a real
lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a sentence.

Typical right wing lie.
--
There are three inescapable facts from the Mueller report that Mitch
McConnell can't hide:
1. A foreign government attacked our elections in order to help Donald
Trump.
2. Trump welcomed that help.
3. Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into his actions.
-Elizabeth Warren

[Ed Stasiak]

> FPP
> > BTR1701

> >
> > "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
> > down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>

> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor. Ask a real
> lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a sentence.

Do even bother reading what's posted?

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 7:45:53 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
> members of Congress online should face prosecution.

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1146143587811258370


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tInMR7QQUVc

[BTR1701]

In article <qfgr66$799$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
> >members of Congress online should face prosecution.
>
> >"Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a
> >disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable
> >[sic]," Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the
> >Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, FL.
>
> >"We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
> >down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued. "You cannot
> >intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is
> >against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."
>
> >ProPublica on Monday publicized posts made by Border Patrol agents in a
> >private Facebook group that disparaged migrants and some members of
> >Congress, such as Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
>
> >Wilson then went on to blame President Trump for causing people to lose
> >respect for Congress, the media, and the White House.
>
> >https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rep-frederica-wilson-demands-prosecut
> >ion-for-those-who-mock-congress-online
>
> Am I on this list to be prosecuted?

You're on many, many lists. (None of them made by Ian.)

[BTR1701]

In article <bdea74b5-5fa4-4aef...@googlegroups.com>,

FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything. Here's her quote
again. Maybe he'll read it this time:

"Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is

unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."

[Rhino]

On 2019-07-02 8:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Tue, 02 Jul 2019 16:44:51 -0700 BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
>> members of Congress online should face prosecution.
>>
>> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a
>> disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable
>> [sic],"
>
> Sounds to me like she accidentally got it right.
>
>> Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the
>> Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, FL.
>>
>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued. "You cannot
>> intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is
>> against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."
>
> Is it okay to say she dresses like a clown?
>
>> ProPublica on Monday publicized posts made by Border Patrol agents in a
>> private Facebook group that disparaged migrants and some members of
>> Congress, such as Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
>>
>> Wilson then went on to blame President Trump for causing people to lose
>> respect for Congress, the media, and the White House.
>
> Look in the mirror sow if you want to know why people have no respect for
> you.
>

Or listen to any of your speeches or those of other Democrats. That
should provide plenty of insight into why you're not respected.

True respect is EARNED, not just granted unconditionally. Now, with that
insight, try to *earn* some respect, Democrats!

>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rep-frederica-wilson-demands-pros
>> ecution-for-those-who-mock-congress-online
>


--
Rhino

[anim8rfsk]

He's also on every list made by Ian.

[shawn]

From what I heard they were just stupid memes and then offensive pics
(fake nudes of AOC.) One of the memes was "If they die then they die"
about the two immigrants that died the other day. That's based off an
old Dolph Lundgren line in ROCKY IV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvAeWtyZ-uE
https://tenor.com/view/rocky-iv-dolph-lundgren-captain-ivan-drago-if-he-dies-he-dies-dies-gif-4956349


Certainly insensitive and not at all appropriate. Possibly something
actionable by their employer but nothing worthy of prosecution. So I
don't know what this member of Congress is thinking of.

[FPP]

So, tell us, Rhino... exactly what HAS Trump earned?

Not the vote... that was provided for him.
Not his great business empire... that was provided for him.
Not his great wealth... that was provided for him.

What, then?

[FPP]

For threats, not free speech. You conveniently snipped out the
important part, right?

No... sorry - I should have said "far right".

[FPP]

On 7/2/19 11:38 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 7/2/19 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <bdea74b5-5fa4-4aef...@googlegroups.com>,
>>   Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> FPP
>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>
>>>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>>>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor.  Ask a
>>>> real
>>>> lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a sentence.
>>>
>>> Do even bother reading what's posted?
>>
>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything. Here's her quote
>> again. Maybe he'll read it this time:

Nope... eating your bullshit once was enough for me.

Gee, when Trump wanted to jail people for being mean to him, it didn't
bother you one bit.

Or, at least not that anybody could tell, because you suddenly came down
with a bad case of 2 year laryngitis.

[Ubiquitous]

atr...@mac.com wrote:

>Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
>members of Congress online should face prosecution.

That's pretty funny, coming from someone who dresses like a rodeo clown.

--
Watching Democrats come up with schemes to "catch Trump" is like
watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.

[Ubiquitous]

atr...@mac.com wrote:
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>> FPP
>>>> BTR1701

>>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>>>
>>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor. Ask a
>>> real lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a
>>> sentence.
>>
>> Do even bother reading what's posted?
>
>FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything.

Nah, that just means FPPsky lost the debate yet feels compelled to
post _something_. Posting several followups in rapid succession is
another, especially if it's to himself (or sockuppets).

Here's her quote again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>

> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
> a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is

> unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
> is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."

[FPP]

On 7/2/19 11:43 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> atr...@mac.com wrote:
>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> FPP
>>>>> BTR1701
>
>>>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>>>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor. Ask a
>>>> real lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a
>>>> sentence.
>>>
>>> Do even bother reading what's posted?
>>
>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything.
>
> Nah, that just means FPPsky lost the debate yet feels compelled to
> post _something_. Posting several followups in rapid succession is
> another, especially if it's to himself (or sockuppets).
>
> Here's her quote again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>>
>> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
>> a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
>> unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
>> is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."

What a shocker! A half-wit posts half a quote.

--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)

[FPP]

On 7/3/19 4:56 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 7/2/19 11:43 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> atr...@mac.com wrote:
>>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> FPP
>>>>>> BTR1701
>>
>>>>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>>>>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor.  Ask a
>>>>> real lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a
>>>>> sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Do even bother reading what's posted?
>>>
>>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything.
>>
>> Nah, that just means FPPsky lost the debate yet feels compelled to
>> post _something_. Posting several followups in rapid succession is
>> another, especially if it's to himself (or sockuppets).
>>
>> Here's her quote again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>>>
>>>     "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
>>>     a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
>>>     unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
>>>     is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."
>
> What a shocker!  A half-wit posts half a quote.

"You cannot intimidate members of Congress — threaten members of
Congress — it is against the law,” Wilson said."

Clearly she was talking about threats of violence and sexual violence
from our brave men of the CPB.

Funny how the meaning of words change when you put them into context,
isn't it.

[trotsky]

On 7/2/19 10:38 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 7/2/19 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <bdea74b5-5fa4-4aef...@googlegroups.com>,
>>   Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> FPP
>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>
>>>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>>>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor.  Ask a
>>>> real
>>>> lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a sentence.
>>>
>>> Do even bother reading what's posted?
>>
>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything. Here's her quote
>> again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>>
>>      "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
>>      a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
>>      unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
>>      is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."
>>
>
> For threats, not free speech.  You conveniently snipped out the
> important part, right?
>
> No... sorry - I should have said "far right".
>

Hey, at least it gives them a chance to not have to get their balls
reattached and discuss the concentration camps cogently.

[trotsky]

On 7/2/19 10:43 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 7/2/19 11:38 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 7/2/19 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <bdea74b5-5fa4-4aef...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>   Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FPP
>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>>>>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor.  Ask a
>>>>> real
>>>>> lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Do even bother reading what's posted?
>>>
>>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything. Here's her quote
>>> again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>
> Nope... eating your bullshit once was enough for me.
>
> Gee, when Trump wanted to jail people for being mean to him, it didn't
> bother you one bit.
>
> Or, at least not that anybody could tell, because you suddenly came down
> with a bad case of 2 year laryngitis.
>

This reminds me of when Mittens Romney lied about something and Obama
said he had Romnesia.

[trotsky]

On 7/2/19 6:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
> members of Congress online should face prosecution.
>
> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a
> disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable
> [sic]," Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the
> Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, FL.
>
> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued. "You cannot
> intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is
> against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."
>
> ProPublica on Monday publicized posts made by Border Patrol agents in a
> private Facebook group that disparaged migrants and some members of
> Congress, such as Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Why aren't you right wing shits for brains discussing this topic?

[Ubiquitous]

On 7/3/19 5:08 AM, FPP wrote:
>On 7/3/19 4:56 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 7/2/19 11:43 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> atr...@mac.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> FPP
>>>>>>> BTR1701

>>>>>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>>>>>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor.  Ask a
>>>>>> real lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a
>>>>>> sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do even bother reading what's posted?
>>>>
>>>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything.
>>>
>>> Nah, that just means FPPsky lost the debate yet feels compelled to
>>> post _something_. Posting several followups in rapid succession is
>>> another, especially if it's to himself (or sockuppets).
>>>
>>> Here's her quote again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>>>
>>>     "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
>>>     a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
>>>     unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
>>>     is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."
>>
>> What a shocker!  A half-wit posts half a quote.

Well, there you go accusing others of what you practice again!

>"You cannot intimidate members of Congress — threaten members of
>Congress — it is against the law,” Wilson said."
>
>Clearly she was talking about threats of violence and sexual violence
>from our brave men of the CPB.
>
>Funny how the meaning of words change when you put them into context,
>isn't it.

Do let us know when you do that, mmkay?

BTW, thanks for making my point about you posting multiple followups to
yourslf whenever you've lost a debate...

[FPP]

Let me hep u.

"You cannot intimidate members of Congress — threaten members of
Congress — it is against the law,” Wilson said."

Get your mom to splain it to u.

[FPP]

Good line. Maybe this is a case of Trumpingitis.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 16:44:51 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
>members of Congress online should face prosecution.
>
>"Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a
>disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable
>[sic]," Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the
>Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, FL.
>
>"We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued. "You cannot
>intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is
>against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."
>

Ah yes, free speech but only for liberals.

>ProPublica on Monday publicized posts made by Border Patrol agents in a
>private Facebook group that disparaged migrants and some members of
>Congress, such as Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
>
>Wilson then went on to blame President Trump for causing people to lose
>respect for Congress, the media, and the White House.

Ah no. It's people like Wilson who have caused the problem.

>
>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rep-frederica-wilson-demands-pros
>ecution-for-those-who-mock-congress-online

[NoBody]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:

No, since FPP does live in his own reality.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 23:38:09 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/2/19 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <bdea74b5-5fa4-4aef...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> FPP
>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>
>>>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>>>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor. Ask a real
>>>> lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a sentence.
>>>
>>> Do even bother reading what's posted?
>>
>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything. Here's her quote
>> again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>>
>> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
>> a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
>> unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
>> is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."
>>
>
>For threats, not free speech. You conveniently snipped out the
>important part, right?
>

Oh look, you ignored the above quote and inserted your own private
reality again.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 04:56:29 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/2/19 11:43 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> atr...@mac.com wrote:
>>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> FPP
>>>>>> BTR1701
>>
>>>>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
>>>>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor. Ask a
>>>>> real lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a
>>>>> sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Do even bother reading what's posted?
>>>
>>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything.
>>
>> Nah, that just means FPPsky lost the debate yet feels compelled to
>> post _something_. Posting several followups in rapid succession is
>> another, especially if it's to himself (or sockuppets).
>>
>> Here's her quote again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>>>
>>> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
>>> a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
>>> unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
>>> is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."
>
>What a shocker! A half-wit posts half a quote.

Just the half you keep ignoring...duh!

[NoBody]

Perhaps given the source, there is good reason to doubt the claims?

[irishra...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 4:54:28 AM UTC-4, Ubiquitous wrote:
> atr...@mac.com wrote:
> > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> FPP
> >>>> BTR1701
>
> >>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
> >>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
> >>>
> >>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor. Ask a
> >>> real lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a
> >>> sentence.
> >>
> >> Do even bother reading what's posted?
> >
> >FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything.
>
> Nah, that just means FPPsky lost the debate yet feels compelled to
> post _something_. Posting several followups in rapid succession is
> another, especially if it's to himself (or sockuppets).

Typical thread for this moron - a dozen posts by him and his sock puppet.

Irish Mike

[Ubiquitous]

Well, you cannot accuse FPP of letting facts interfere with his opinion.

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on 7/2/19 at 7:40 PM:

C'mon, guys. Let's play fair. I mean, it's obvious that "people who are
online making fun of members of Congress" and "people who are online
mocking members of Congress" mean TOTALLY different things. I mean, duh.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"She mustn't kill Aaron. I mean it. I hate to be strict but she really
mustn't kill anyone." -- Carolyn Martens, KILLING EVE

[BTR1701]

In article <qfin1j$tkm$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> BTR1701 sent the following on 7/2/19 at 7:40 PM:
> > In article <bdea74b5-5fa4-4aef...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> FPP
> >>>> BTR1701
> >>>>
> >>>> "We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them
> >>>> down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued.
> >>>
> >>> Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor. Ask a real
> >>> lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a sentence.
> >>
> >> Do even bother reading what's posted?
> >
> > FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything. Here's her quote
> > again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
> >
> > "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
> > a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
> > unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
> > is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."
>
> C'mon, guys. Let's play fair. I mean, it's obvious that "people who are
> online making fun of members of Congress" and "people who are online
> mocking members of Congress" mean TOTALLY different things. I mean, duh.

Yeah, but we're supposed to ignore both linguistic rules and common
convention so that we can excuse a Democrat from her authoritarianism
and pretend she didn't say something she clearly did.

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on 7/3/19 at 12:02 PM:

I truly believe that you're giving FPP far too much credit here when you
imply that he ignored something here. I honestly think that it went
right over his head in the first place, as it usually does. When all is
said and done, you can't have intellectual dishonesty in a person when
the first of those two words consistently proves to be an insurmountable
obstacle for that person. And that's also why, in FPP's case, you can
crush him and embarrass him over and over and over again in debate and
it won't even make a dent. Because he really is that clueless and you
really are wasting your time because he truly is the equivalent of Monty
Python's black knight. And the same applies to all of the other socks in
that same drawer.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I don't understand the distinction being made. To ensure I get on the
list, I pledge to BOTH make fun of AND mock members of Congress in all
my future comments.

I have had utter contempt for Congress, with limited exceptions, for at
least the last 35 years. I want the Congress we had throughout the 1970s
when it was not a national disgrace, when Republicans were sane and a
lot more socially liberal than Democrats were, long before fidelity to
religious ideology became so important in law-making.

[shawn]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:51:11 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>In article <qfin1j$tkm$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 sent the following on 7/2/19 at 7:40 PM:
>>> > In article <bdea74b5-5fa4-4aef...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> FPP
>>> >>>> BTR1701

>>> >

>>> > "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
>>> > a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
>>> > unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
>>> > is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."
>>>
>>> C'mon, guys. Let's play fair. I mean, it's obvious that "people who are
>>> online making fun of members of Congress" and "people who are online
>>> mocking members of Congress" mean TOTALLY different things. I mean, duh.
>>
>>Yeah, but we're supposed to ignore both linguistic rules and common
>>convention so that we can excuse a Democrat from her authoritarianism
>>and pretend she didn't say something she clearly did.
>
>I don't understand the distinction being made. To ensure I get on the
>list, I pledge to BOTH make fun of AND mock members of Congress in all
>my future comments.
>
>I have had utter contempt for Congress, with limited exceptions, for at
>least the last 35 years. I want the Congress we had throughout the 1970s
>when it was not a national disgrace, when Republicans were sane and a
>lot more socially liberal than Democrats were, long before fidelity to
>religious ideology became so important in law-making.

It would be nice to get back to a Congress that actually cared about
working for the American people but I just don't see how we do it. I
fully expect things to only get worse with more candidates trying to
take on the sort of attack at all costs any opponent style that Trump
has instead of trying to actually work with people they disagree with
in order to come to a mutual agreement that no one is completely happy
over, but one that does take into account the people they are elected
to represent. Not just doing what they need to do to win that next
election which is where we seem to be.

[Jim G.]

Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 7/3/19 at 12:51 PM:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <qfin1j$tkm$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 sent the following on 7/2/19 at 7:40 PM:
>>>>

>>>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything. Here's her quote
>>>> again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>>>>
>>>> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
>>>> a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
>>>> unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
>>>> is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."
>>>
>>> C'mon, guys. Let's play fair. I mean, it's obvious that "people who are
>>> online making fun of members of Congress" and "people who are online
>>> mocking members of Congress" mean TOTALLY different things. I mean, duh.
>>
>> Yeah, but we're supposed to ignore both linguistic rules and common
>> convention so that we can excuse a Democrat from her authoritarianism
>> and pretend she didn't say something she clearly did.
>
> I don't understand the distinction being made.

It's remotely possible that FPP is the only one.

[Jim G.]

Jim G. sent the following on 7/3/19 at 1:48 PM:

> Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 7/3/19 at 12:51 PM:
>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <qfin1j$tkm$2...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on 7/2/19 at 7:40 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>> FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything. Here's her quote
>>>>> again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
>>>>> a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is
>>>>> unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
>>>>> is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."
>>>>
>>>> C'mon, guys. Let's play fair. I mean, it's obvious that "people who are
>>>> online making fun of members of Congress" and "people who are online
>>>> mocking members of Congress" mean TOTALLY different things. I mean, duh.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but we're supposed to ignore both linguistic rules and common
>>> convention so that we can excuse a Democrat from her authoritarianism
>>> and pretend she didn't say something she clearly did.
>>
>> I don't understand the distinction being made.
>
> It's remotely possible that FPP is the only one.

Well, isn't that a dandy time for my new editor to embarrass me like
that. Let's try again after escorting her to the door:

It's remotely possible that FPP is the only one who does.

[FPP]

Sure, real HE-Man Combat Vet.

[FPP]

At least he admits you're a half-wit.

[FPP]

Or we can read the entirety of what she said, which is different from
taking half the words out of context.

But, clearly, you only repeat the half that you like.

[trotsky]

Cite?

[trotsky]

You recognize "Ed Stasiak" as Thanny's sockpuppet too? That's interesting.

[trotsky]

Trumporrhea. Similar to gonorhhea, but your mushroom feels like it's on
fire.

[NoBody]

Funny how FPP is silent when Republican lawmakers are spit upon and
chased out of diners by leftie loons.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 06:40:58 -0700 (PDT), irishra...@gmail.com
wrote:

What "sock puppet" is that? Please provide support for your incorrect
claim.

[Ubiquitous]

That's b/c FPP bases his outrage on whether he likes the recipiant of bad
beviour or not.

[FPP]

I'm sure I'll be outraged at what you said just as soon as I have it
translated into English.

[NoBody]

Rather than put together a coherent reply that addresses the subject,
FPP chooses to engage in a spelling flame.

[NoBody]

<crickets.wav>

[moviePig]

Bad spelling is only the first barrier there to a "coherent reply"...

--

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

[FPP]

What UbiMoron doesn't tell you is that it's NOT a "spelling" "flame".
I could give two fucks about how many words he misspells.

It's the fact that he's constantly diverting replies from "rec.arts.tv"
to a DIFFERENT newsgroup.
That's why I write: "Follow-ups To: alt.cant.spell"

Nothing to do with spelling. Everything to do with being a coward.

Furthermore, it NEVER works... so, now only is it cowardly, but it's
ineffective and stupid.
But, then, it's Ubi... so that's pretty much a given right off the bat.

[NoBody]

And yet you focused on his spelling errors. Are you really *this*
disconnected from reality?

>It's the fact that he's constantly diverting replies from "rec.arts.tv"
>to a DIFFERENT newsgroup.
>That's why I write: "Follow-ups To: alt.cant.spell"
>
>Nothing to do with spelling. Everything to do with being a coward.

Oh the irony...

>
>Furthermore, it NEVER works... so, now only is it cowardly, but it's
>ineffective and stupid.

Then why do you do it?

[moviePig]

Wait, *who* brought up "spelling errors"? Afaics, that was *you*.

(Cue your favorite crickets...)

>> It's the fact that he's constantly diverting replies from "rec.arts.tv"
>> to a DIFFERENT newsgroup.
>> That's why I write: "Follow-ups To: alt.cant.spell"
>>
>> Nothing to do with spelling. Everything to do with being a coward.
>
> Oh the irony...
>
>>
>> Furthermore, it NEVER works... so, now only is it cowardly, but it's
>> ineffective and stupid.
>
> Then why do you do it?

"I'm not, you are!" - Bartlett's Book Of Quotations For Third Graders

>> But, then, it's Ubi... so that's pretty much a given right off the bat.

[FPP]

This is why I killfiled Ubi's NoSock. He's worthless. His posts are
worthless. And reading what he posts can actually make you stupider.

[moviePig]

Stupidr? I'm not sure that's ture...

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

TR1701 sent the following on 7/3/19 at 12:02 PM:
- hide quoted text -

You do that, regardless. Pathological liar.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 16:44:51 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
>members of Congress online should face prosecution.

>
>"Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a
>disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable

>[sic]," Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the
>Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, FL.

>
>"We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them

>down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued. "You cannot
>intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is
>against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."
>
>ProPublica on Monday publicized posts made by Border Patrol agents in a
>private Facebook group that disparaged migrants and some members of
>Congress, such as Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
>
>Wilson then went on to blame President Trump for causing people to lose
>respect for Congress, the media, and the White House.
>
>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rep-frederica-wilson-demands-pros
>ecution-for-those-who-mock-congress-online

We're definitely a long way from when politicians were burnt in
effigy.

Wonder what the good Congresswoman would think of THAT!

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:07:34 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
>> members of Congress online should face prosecution.
>

>Epic. Fail.

>
>"You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of
>Congress. It is
>against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."
>

>Nothing about being prosecuted for mocking there, counselor. Ask a real
>lawyer for advice... or an English teacher, on how to read a sentence.
>

>Typical right wing lie.

If I say a particular politician is a 'worthless piece of ****" that
is my right.

If I then have to fear for my safety at 2 am due to having said that
then our freedom clearly isn't what you and I thought it was.

SAYING that "Rep John Doe is a piece of ****" doesn't threaten him/her
in any way (except perhaps for their re-election prospects which
aren't constitutionally protected in any case)

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:40:02 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>FPP just spasms and responds without reading anything. Here's her quote
>again. Maybe he'll read it this time:
>

> "Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are
> a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is

> unacceptable. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it
> is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."

I dunno - saying 'we're gonna shut them down' is a fairly open threat
to someone's freedom of speech and when uttered by an elected official
is more than a little over the top - and it could be argued that it's
a violation of their oath of office which swears to uphold the
constitution which last I heard still includes the First Amendment (in
my opinion the fact that it is the first and not the tenth or eleventh
was not at all a coincidence on the part of the Founding Fathers)

[FPP]

See? It's working already!

[irishra...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 7:45:53 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock
> members of Congress online should face prosecution.

There is a lesson to be learned here.
Ugly stupid people should not wear ugly
stupid hats.

Irish Mike

[Adam H. Kerman]

Need a ruling here: Is the use of the phrase "ugly stupid hats" mocking
or making fun of? According to FPP elsewhere in this thread, one will
get you arrested and one will not. I have already pledged to BOTH mock
AND make fun of, making sure to cover all bases.

[trotsky]

Are you playing with your wiener again?

[NoBody]

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:08:00 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

Where did I bring this up? Please post the message where I did so. In
the above, it is clear that FPP did so when he wrote of "translating
into English" as there was a misspelling in the above.

>
>(Cue your favorite crickets...)

Your response is?

>
>
>>> It's the fact that he's constantly diverting replies from "rec.arts.tv"
>>> to a DIFFERENT newsgroup.
>>> That's why I write: "Follow-ups To: alt.cant.spell"
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with spelling. Everything to do with being a coward.
>>
>> Oh the irony...
>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it NEVER works... so, now only is it cowardly, but it's
>>> ineffective and stupid.
>>
>> Then why do you do it?
>
>"I'm not, you are!" - Bartlett's Book Of Quotations For Third Graders

I call it the way I see it. You accuse me of what you yourself
practice.

[moviePig]

The *fact* is that *I* ignored the original spelling-errors -- as I
nearly always do, and as FPP says he did and does. But even then,
interpreting the message was a crapshoot -- as you might've seen had
*you* looked past the spelling-errors before bringing them up.

(The whole history is quoted above. Search it for 'spell'...)

>>
>>>> It's the fact that he's constantly diverting replies from "rec.arts.tv"
>>>> to a DIFFERENT newsgroup.
>>>> That's why I write: "Follow-ups To: alt.cant.spell"
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with spelling. Everything to do with being a coward.
>>>
>>> Oh the irony...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, it NEVER works... so, now only is it cowardly, but it's
>>>> ineffective and stupid.
>>>
>>> Then why do you do it?
>>
>> "I'm not, you are!" - Bartlett's Book Of Quotations For Third Graders
>
> I call it the way I see it. You accuse me of what you yourself
> practice.

Really? Afaik, nobody else here does Reply-To diversions...

>>
>>
>>>> But, then, it's Ubi... so that's pretty much a given right off the bat.

[FPP]

Don't you mean "NoBody else here does Reply-To diversions..."?

[NoBody]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 10:04:02 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>

The only problem with what FPP said needed to be translated into
English was a misspelling. It's reasonable to conclused that he was
engaged in a spelling flame.

>
>
>>>
>>>>> It's the fact that he's constantly diverting replies from "rec.arts.tv"
>>>>> to a DIFFERENT newsgroup.
>>>>> That's why I write: "Follow-ups To: alt.cant.spell"
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with spelling. Everything to do with being a coward.
>>>>
>>>> Oh the irony...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, it NEVER works... so, now only is it cowardly, but it's
>>>>> ineffective and stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you do it?
>>>
>>> "I'm not, you are!" - Bartlett's Book Of Quotations For Third Graders
>>
>> I call it the way I see it. You accuse me of what you yourself
>> practice.
>
>Really? Afaik, nobody else here does Reply-To diversions...

Neither do I or are you going to start with the FPP stupidity that I'm
Ubi?

[NoBody]

Yawn. FPP repeats his debunked claim that I'm Ubi.

[moviePig]

"That's because FPP bases his outrage on whether he likes the
recipient of bad behavior or not."

Nope, sorry. Even assuming I've corrected the misspellings accurately,
I'm still unsure how to parse the sentence. E.g., it seems odd to speak
of "receiving" bad behavior. Maybe you have more insight...

>>>>
>>>>>> It's the fact that he's constantly diverting replies from "rec.arts.tv"
>>>>>> to a DIFFERENT newsgroup.
>>>>>> That's why I write: "Follow-ups To: alt.cant.spell"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to do with spelling. Everything to do with being a coward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh the irony...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, it NEVER works... so, now only is it cowardly, but it's
>>>>>> ineffective and stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you do it?
>>>>
>>>> "I'm not, you are!" - Bartlett's Book Of Quotations For Third Graders
>>>
>>> I call it the way I see it. You accuse me of what you yourself
>>> practice.
>>
>> Really? Afaik, nobody else here does Reply-To diversions...
>
> Neither do I or are you going to start with the FPP stupidity that I'm
> Ubi?

But neither does FPP do such diversions. So, there's no "why does he".

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But, then, it's Ubi... so that's pretty much a given right off the bat.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:55:15 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>

It's perfectly clear to me. Although it was not expressed in totally
clear terms, the meaning is obvious and thus is English. The only
issue is the misspelling.

>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the fact that he's constantly diverting replies from "rec.arts.tv"
>>>>>>> to a DIFFERENT newsgroup.
>>>>>>> That's why I write: "Follow-ups To: alt.cant.spell"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing to do with spelling. Everything to do with being a coward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh the irony...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, it NEVER works... so, now only is it cowardly, but it's
>>>>>>> ineffective and stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do you do it?
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm not, you are!" - Bartlett's Book Of Quotations For Third Graders
>>>>
>>>> I call it the way I see it. You accuse me of what you yourself
>>>> practice.
>>>
>>> Really? Afaik, nobody else here does Reply-To diversions...
>>
>> Neither do I or are you going to start with the FPP stupidity that I'm
>> Ubi?
>
>But neither does FPP do such diversions. So, there's no "why does he".

You're evading my question. You insinuated that I alter followups
which I do not.

[moviePig]

'Perfectly clear'? E.g., you're sure 'recipient' wasn't supposed to be
'perpetrator'? I'm not, particularly in a such a lackadaisical post.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the fact that he's constantly diverting replies from "rec.arts.tv"
>>>>>>>> to a DIFFERENT newsgroup.
>>>>>>>> That's why I write: "Follow-ups To: alt.cant.spell"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing to do with spelling. Everything to do with being a coward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh the irony...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Furthermore, it NEVER works... so, now only is it cowardly, but it's
>>>>>>>> ineffective and stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why do you do it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I'm not, you are!" - Bartlett's Book Of Quotations For Third Graders
>>>>>
>>>>> I call it the way I see it. You accuse me of what you yourself
>>>>> practice.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Afaik, nobody else here does Reply-To diversions...
>>>
>>> Neither do I or are you going to start with the FPP stupidity that I'm
>>> Ubi?
>>
>> But neither does FPP do such diversions. So, there's no "why does he".
>
> You're evading my question. You insinuated that I alter followups
> which I do not.

I said nothing about whether you 'alter followups'. I addressed your
contention that FPP does. (See "Then why do you do it?")

>>>>>>>> But, then, it's Ubi... so that's pretty much a given right off the bat.

[FPP]

Because "headers", silly.
Please... ask him to show anywhere that I alter my Follow-ups to.

I mean, for real... because just typing "Follow-up to: alt.cant.spell"
at the bottom of my posts doesn't cut it.

[NoBody]

Ding dong doesn't realized that I was accused of doing this when I
don't do it. I never accused him of such.

>
>I mean, for real... because just typing "Follow-up to: alt.cant.spell"
>at the bottom of my posts doesn't cut it.

What are you babbling about now?